...daughter of Michael Jackson tried to commit suicide after leaving a twit with a verse from the Beatles song because she was not allowed to go to Marilyn Manson concert ?..
Paris, do you remember: you can't please everyone, but you can piss everyone?..
Sometimes life makes us live only from bitchiness.
But it'll pass too.
Showing posts with label human nature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human nature. Show all posts
6 Jun 2013
26 Jul 2012
The Jackson Family Wars. Part Multiple
Katherine Jackson is alive and finally home... But her grandchildren are on the warpath. These precocious kids are fighting with a weapon that their relatives have no idea how to handle - truth.
Prince Jackson went on Twitter to say:
I would first like to start off this tweet by thanking the fans that have always stood by me and my family, my dad really appreciated your support and I still treasure it to this day. As I am sure everyone is well aware of the events that have been going on. I have been holding off on backing up my sister and her tweets avidly because I was waiting for the time to reveal my side. As long as I can remember my dad had repeatedly warned me of certain people and their ways. Although I am happy my grandma was returned, after speaking with her I realized how misguided and how badly she was lied to. I’m really angry and hurt. The following image is of a group chat I had started to several family members. This group text message I had started was replied to but they didn’t know that I could see the responses. For this whole time, they denied us contact to our grandmother. “If you continue with your lies I will continue with the truth”
-Michael Jackson Jr.
and to post the picture:
It was on 23 of July...
Prince, baby, where did you learn to be soo official?!. LOL!
On a serious note: WHY it was THAT important not to let Prince and Paris to talk to their grandmother? What they could tell each other that was so dangerous? In case she wasn't held against her will in that Arizona spa. Probably I'm not too bright but I don't get it.
Update. Someone deleted Prince's tweets!
I don't like it. At all.
This strange tweet appeared first, than Prince's tweets were deleted - this one including.
Prince Jackson went on Twitter to say:
I would first like to start off this tweet by thanking the fans that have always stood by me and my family, my dad really appreciated your support and I still treasure it to this day. As I am sure everyone is well aware of the events that have been going on. I have been holding off on backing up my sister and her tweets avidly because I was waiting for the time to reveal my side. As long as I can remember my dad had repeatedly warned me of certain people and their ways. Although I am happy my grandma was returned, after speaking with her I realized how misguided and how badly she was lied to. I’m really angry and hurt. The following image is of a group chat I had started to several family members. This group text message I had started was replied to but they didn’t know that I could see the responses. For this whole time, they denied us contact to our grandmother. “If you continue with your lies I will continue with the truth”
-Michael Jackson Jr.
and to post the picture:
Prince, baby, where did you learn to be soo official?!. LOL!
On a serious note: WHY it was THAT important not to let Prince and Paris to talk to their grandmother? What they could tell each other that was so dangerous? In case she wasn't held against her will in that Arizona spa. Probably I'm not too bright but I don't get it.
Update. Someone deleted Prince's tweets!
I don't like it. At all.
This strange tweet appeared first, than Prince's tweets were deleted - this one including.
Update 1. Kids got up, tweets were restored, unknown hacker stays unknown yet.
Update 2. Very funny outcome of all the drama: http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2012/07/roland-s-martin-exclusive-janet-jackson-others-family-members-barred-from-moms-california-home/ Some of Katherine's children are not allowed to visit their mom at home. That's probably not bad for her own safety.
25 Jul 2012
WHERE IS KATHERINE JACKSON?
It was weird yesterday, today it starts to look frightening.
The clan got divided: Marlon, Jackie and Tito (who decided to withdraw his signature from the letter to MJ's estate executors) have no idea what is going on with their mother, Randy claims that Katherine is with Rebbie and "relaxing". Also Randy told Al Sharpton that he and Janet Jackson went to the Calabasas mansion to let Paris and Prince know that they can visit with or talk to their grandma at any time. While TMZ issued video of that warm family meeting where someone looking like Janet Jackson is trying to take away something looking like a mobile phone from someone looking like Paris Jackson. There was also someone's bald head looking like Randy Jackson's bald head in the video. (TMZ even wrote that there was exchange of punches between Janet and Paris, but Paris denied it on twitter). Randy said that he and his siblings were denied access to the kids, here is the quote: When we got to the home, we were kind of denied access to our home by security and trench and that never happened.
Err... Really?..
I haven't heard yet from LaToya and Joseph Jackson. They rarely miss a chance to take part in family showdowns, so I'm extremely surprised!
So far the situation doesn't look good...
Ifwe are still in our right mind and we don't consider Prince, Paris and Blanket as co-conspirators conspiring to drive all their relatives to early grave than I can't imagine why Katherine didn't dial Paris phone number and say "Hi". As the TMZ video shows at least Paris keeps her mobile phone. I believe Katherine must know her granddaughter's number. Why she doesn't call?.. Why Randy or Janet couldn't place a call to Rebbie several days ago to say: "Tell mom to call Paris and calm her down!" I can think of two possible reasons - and I don't like both. First reason: Katherine is physically unable to talk. Second reason: Katherine is hold hostage and she refuses to do what her kids try to make he to do. Though I can think of a third reason: Jermaine, Randy, Janet and Rebbie themselves have no idea where is their mother. Have you ever heard about those elderly people who leave their homes and get lost?..
The clan got divided: Marlon, Jackie and Tito (who decided to withdraw his signature from the letter to MJ's estate executors) have no idea what is going on with their mother, Randy claims that Katherine is with Rebbie and "relaxing". Also Randy told Al Sharpton that he and Janet Jackson went to the Calabasas mansion to let Paris and Prince know that they can visit with or talk to their grandma at any time. While TMZ issued video of that warm family meeting where someone looking like Janet Jackson is trying to take away something looking like a mobile phone from someone looking like Paris Jackson. There was also someone's bald head looking like Randy Jackson's bald head in the video. (TMZ even wrote that there was exchange of punches between Janet and Paris, but Paris denied it on twitter). Randy said that he and his siblings were denied access to the kids, here is the quote: When we got to the home, we were kind of denied access to our home by security and trench and that never happened.
Err... Really?..
I haven't heard yet from LaToya and Joseph Jackson. They rarely miss a chance to take part in family showdowns, so I'm extremely surprised!
So far the situation doesn't look good...
If
18 Jul 2012
And The Fuckery Begins!
Michael's siblings (namely Janet, Rebbie, Tito, Randy and Jermaine) wrote a letter to executors of MJ's will John Branca and John McClain! Please read it yourself: http://www.celebuzz.com/photos/jackson-family-letter-calling-for-executors-of-michael-jacksons-estate-to-resign-immediately/
So, what would be next?.. Litigations?
The saddest thing is that I'm not sure that anyone involved really has Michael's kids best interest in their heart.
Update: Oh my, Paris got involved in family showdowns!..
Too many relatives - too many problems...
I admire Paris - she doesn't hesitate to tell people where to go, I was softer at 14 (errr... maybe. I don't remember. LOL!)
So, what would be next?.. Litigations?
The saddest thing is that I'm not sure that anyone involved really has Michael's kids best interest in their heart.
Update: Oh my, Paris got involved in family showdowns!..
I admire Paris - she doesn't hesitate to tell people where to go, I was softer at 14 (errr... maybe. I don't remember. LOL!)
11 May 2012
Fans On Scott Thorson And Myths About Michael Jackson
I always loved history. I always thought it is fascinating how facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Why does it happen?.. Because people are either inaccurate and careless with the facts - or they try to distort them on purpose. I find it totally HILARIOUS how those who complain about lies and inaccuracies make lies and inaccuracies themselves!
Unfortunately Michael Jackson passed to the history almost three years ago. Nowadays mythologizers put their efforts into casting MJ into a bronze statue that has to stay in history. Here I want to offer a little (well, actually it's going to be quite long...) example of how it is going on.
I'm talking about a blog called http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/. I think it has several authors and they are quite fruitful. Let's examine their reaction towards a recent interview by Scott Thorson - I wrote about it: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html.
Here is a blogpost I'm going to analyse: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/lies-about-michael-jackson-will-scott-thorson-understand-that-blood-money-has-never-done-anyone-any-good/.
Let's start from the title of the blogpost. "LIES ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON. Will Scott Thorson blah-blah-blah..." A reader (who knows who is Scott Thorson) doesn't even need to read the post - title hints very clearly that Thorson is a liar!
Here I want to make a little nota bene: I, the author of this blog, have no idea whether Scott Thorson was telling the truth about his fling with MJ. I don't have any substantial proofs to believe in this or that option.
The question of proving is on the vindicatemj author's mind too: "However the main question which is on everyone’s mind is how to prove that Scott Thorson is telling lies about Michael Jackson". Please pay attention: the author isn't interested in finding out whether Thorson is telling the truth or not - no, the author is interested in proving that Thorson lies. Thus the whole blogpost is dedicated to proving that Thorson lied.
"The first part of the interview was about Liberace, but the public was of course interested only in Michael Jackson and held their breath waiting for the second part" - I believe that the mentioned public is actually the fans of MJ though.
The author quotes ET Online site:
http://www.etonline.com/news/121296_Liberace_s_Former_Lover_Details_Secret_Romance/index.html
The comment is as follows: "The text makes it clear that the above is taking place as a sort of a publicity campaign for the forthcoming movie about Liberace. However judging by the ET’s prelude to the story it leaves you with an uneasy feeling that the goal of the program (and movie?) is to eventually mix the names and images of MJ and Liberace together". Really?..
The author goes on discussing when exactly Scott was seduced by Liberace: at age 16 or at age 19. I would omit it, unlike the author I don't see really significant difference between 16 and 19. So, let's move (together with the author) to the second part of Thorson's interview: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance
"Let us not faint at the above" - the author urges. Err, faint?.. Mmkay.
"Scott is extremely cautious in making his allegations (interesting to find out why) and the most he says is that “the relationship crossed the boundaries” adding that this is all he is comfortable saying”"
Now I want to urge people reading this to watch the actual footage: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance/index.html
Scott Thorson admits that he had fling with MJ only because his interviewer pressed him!
"The ET text claims that Thorson detailed the ‘relationship’ with Michael Jackson in his book and this is a flat lie told by Entertainment Tonight for which the ET can and should be directly reprimanded. Thorson’s book written in 1988 (and not in 1998!) was solely about Liberace and absolutely not about Michael Jackson, not to mention the fact that there was nothing about the alleged ‘gay’ relationship with Michael there." Surprise-surprise! Mass media is inaccurate! The author doesn't seem like someone who used to work with mass media, otherwise he (or she) would know that the people who work in mass media are actually... people. Who have plenty things on their minds other than checking what exactly and where exactly was written. Accuracy is not what journalists are known for. That's for sure!
Actually I'm going to show you that the author of the analysed blogpost is a human too. Very human. And not accurate - to say the least...
But let's continue.
"We also learn from the ET that Thorson is planning a new book where he is evidently going to develop his novel ideas about Michael Jackson" - Oh really?.. Evidently?.. OK, life will show.
"It is clear that the ET program is probing the ground to see whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him" - Err, no. It's not clear. Does ET Online co-operates with Thorson on his new book?.. Why? Pay attention at the wording: "whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him". What "things" the author is talking about? That MJ might have had a gay fling?.. So, the author calls it "slandering"? The author is just outright homophobic. Gay sex isn't illegal in US (or in UK for that matter), isn't it? So why "slandering" then? I can imagine a possible opponent telling me: "Because it's not true!" The problem is this possible opponent has to prove first what is true and what is false and to do it using something more substantial than their emotions. Good luck to them!
The author goes on digging into history of Scott Thorson's claims about his fling with MJ. "Thorson’s story is not new. It goes back to 2004 when Michael Jackson was in the midst of his legal battle with the Arvizos and had no time or strength for disputing Scott Thorson’s ideas. His lawyer Steven Cochran angrily called the lies “false trash” and said they would take action but in the avalance that followed the story didn’t get the attention it deserved" - Dear author, your naivety kills me! MJ and his lawyers would be total idiots in case they gave "the attention it deserved". The deserved attention would create a huge tsunami of scandal around MJ and Thorson which would spiral into hell knows what. (The best way to deal with the situation was to allow the wave to calm down).
"However if you compare today’s story by Thorson with the one voiced back in 2004 you will see a decided difference – at the time, due to MJ’s vulnerability Scott’s allegations of a gay relationship with Michael Jackson were much more salacious while now he and Entertainment Tonight are much more cautious and are somewhat dancing around the theme (which makes you suspect that they are afraid of a lawsuit)" - Let's watch the video one more time. Christina McLarty was the one who was quite persistent asking Scott about the nature of his relationship with Michael. Thorson was definitely evasive, feeling uneasy about answering her questions... Does it look like he wanted to talk about his fling/whatever with MJ?.. It doesn't look so. It doesn't look "cautious" too, more like uneasy. Why uneasy?.. It's a different question. We may speculate about it, but a lawsuit... well, what laws did Thorson break here?.. I'm not a specialist in US law but I'm afraid no one would be able to sue the guy.
"The typical media report about Thorson’s story claimed that Scott had a gay affair with MJ and that this would be the crucial revelation for the child molestation case. This way the papers gave away the Prosecutors’ intentions to use the alleged MJ’s homosexuality as a bridge to paedophilia and a way to prove him to be a “boy abuser” " - The problems is the prosecution didn't do that though there were some circumstantial evidence of "the alleged MJ’s homosexuality". There are plenty of scientific and pseudo scientific discussions going on about how homosexuality and paedophilia are linked - I have no desire to go in-depth, but I'm quite sure that in case prosecution would try to prove that MJ was involved in homosexual acts with adult men the defence would provide plenty of experts who would argue about homosexuality and paedophilia to the point of exhaustion. Besides let's admit it: Scott Thorson doesn't have a reputation of a person who you're going to believe immediately.
Then the author continues making observation that there were different scandalous stories about MJ at the time the National Enquirer material with Thorson revelations appeared. The author's reasoning makes you think about some sort of a global mass media conspiracy against Michael Jackson. The reality is... The author apparently doesn't read newspapers and watch TV (or maybe he/she reads/watches only something about MJ). Otherwise he or she would know that in case something scandalous of a magnitude of MJ's trial takes place mass media makes everything possible to add fuel to the fire. That's not about Michael Jackson - that's about mass media!
Let's move to a funniest part of the vindicatemj blogpost. The author decided to analyse the National Enquirer 2004 article. (Of course the author never read the the article itself . Unfortunately I didn't save it when it was available online - but who knew?..).
"The story told by the National Enquirer was horrendous" - Horrendous?.. Really?Did the author ever had sex him/herself?..
Here is an article the author refers to:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-04-15/gossip/18259018_1_scott-thorson-hugh-hefner-liberace "Michael “motioned him over to the bed”? He “made the first move”? He “begged Scott to leave Liberace”? And Scott said “No” to him?? Despite the fact that his love affair with Liberace was drawing to an end???" - I suspect that if the story is true Thorson probably used to kick himself for not yielding to MJ's beggings. Very soon MJ released "Thriller", meanwhile Liberace kicked Scott out. But how the author could know that Thorson knew at the time that his elderly lover is going to kick him out?..
The next quotation is epic: "Michael, that innocent little dove who even in the 90s made rounds of people’s homes with the Jehovah’s Witnesses books in his hands to preach the Gospel?" Innocent little WHO?.. And wtf the dove was doing in the 90s going door to door if he left Jehovah's Witnesses for good by the end of 80-s??? BTW can we call this slander because this information is obviously false?
"And does Scott Thorson remember what Michael was like during that period of time? Could that shy and timid guy confidently “motion” anyone to himself? Is he describing someone street smart or the painfully shy young man Michael actually was?" - How in hell the author would know what MJ was like during that period of time? This pseudo psychology is just ridiculous.
"We do not expect these liars to tell us the truth, but why can’t these people report even their lies correctly?" - I'm afraid for the very same reason why the dove used to distribute Jehovah's Witnesses literature in the 90-s.
"today’s story from the same Scott Thorson sounds much more reserved as he is simply afraid to repeat it the way it was told back in 2004" - Probably he is afraid of manic fans... It's a real possibility.
The author goes on discussing once again why Tom Sneddon wasn't interested in Thorson as a witness despite the fact that according to National Enquirer Scott saw porn magazines with young boys (btw how young?..) in MJ's possession and whether it is possible to deceive a polygraph. There is a lot of homemade psychology too: "Scott Thorson was most sophisticated in matters of sex while Michael was shy, “prissy, proper and prim” (according to Kit Culkin) and would blush at any question about sex or mere profanity as a “Victorian old maid”" - For some reason prissy, proper and primgirls people have sex too. I observed a couple of examples first hand.
"He [Kit Culkin] also said that Michael was an absolute “scaredy-cat” or excessively fearful as the dictionary puts it - and this makes the story about him being so bold in a stranger’s home as to make passes at Scott look highly dubious to me" - Umm... Fear of being caught actually could turn on, besides MJ used to be bold not even in strangers' houses, but also in some public places...
"Thorson at the time was a sophisticated and street smart guy with more than 4 years of homosexual love behind his back while Michael Jackson was still a baby and a “Victorian maid” who made rounds of other people’s houses as a devout Jehovah’s Witness preaching God and the way of life according to the Bible" -I love expression 4 years of homosexual love behind his back. Baby Michael at the time had more than a decade in show business behind his back - show business in 70-s, with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll in it's full bloom. I suspect he wasn't as naive as the author tries so hard to portray him. Besides perhaps a naive boy might be fascinated by a street smart guy like Thorson.
The author cites quite a well-known among fans rebuttal posted originally on a National Enquirer board by... well, by an anonymous. Supposedly someone who knew MJ in person.
Here is this message:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances.
Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott.
Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course...Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face).
They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
The serious problem of this message is that ANYONE could write it. Yeah, including a fan who NEVER even met MJ in person!
The author goes on with their analysis trying to figure out when MJ's trysts with Scott supposedly took place. It takes the author plenty of paragraphs to figure out at last that MJ was really in London at the same time as Liberace and Thorson. The author apparently doesn't know how to use google. Just google Liberace and lord Montagu and you'll stumble upon several links mentioning MJ as well. Here is a picture: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/958444/?type=display (unfortunately it's too little, perhaps there are bigger copies somewhere in the web). Here we can see Lord Montagu, Liberace next to him, Scott Thorson on the back seat and do you recognise that guy in a fur coat?.. yeah, it's Michael Jackson! http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4462266.The_way_you_made_us_feel___an_appreciation_of_Michael_Jackson/?ref=rss
There is even footage of all four of them in this car somewhere on youtube (I'm too lazy to find it now).
"Frankly, the timeline did not convince me that Thorson could see Michael Jackson in London in the summer of 1981" - the author tells us. Would the pictures convince him/her?.. The picture of MJ, Thorson, Liberace and lord Montagu in the car was even shown during Thorson's interview to ET Online.
"How could he if Michael was there in May-September 1981 while Thorson was busy with his cocaine/murder/witness event at about the same period of time?" - Oh, Scott even didn't have time for two shags?.. It doesn't take too much time normally.
An interesting part of the blogpost to me personally was quoting of Roger Jacobs story that I referred to in my previous blogpost. I wonder whether the author managed to find it him/herself or just read my blogpost? (I tend to believe the second option since the author even wasn't able to find out whether Thorson and MJ met in London in 1981).
"Truth is the only goal worth paying, working and living for" - the author tells us. I'm impressed!
"The only thing which I don’t like about his story is that he claims that Thorson passed several polygraph tests" - ugh... So, "Roger Jacobs is a serious journalist – you can tell it by the manner of his writing", you are an ardent champion of truth, but you don't like several polygraph tests statement?.. So, does it mean that the author doesn't believe "a serious journalist" on this matter but for some reason he or she believes all other things that Jacobs has to say or does it mean that the author actually doesn't like the truth?..
It's called "twisted mind" I think.
I want to return to what I began with: facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Above is an example of how a fan is trying to make a myth. My goal is to try to separate myths from the reality. It doesn't matter who makes those myths: fans, journalists, haters... Inaccuracies, distortions and agendas - that's what historians always have to deal with.
Update: It seems impossible now to find messages posted on National Enquirer site in 2004. But this is supposedly a full text of message left by... errr, I don't know who. It's much longer than the text quoted on vinicatemj blog. Here it is:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
Please.
Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.
There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.
Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.
So, here we have a lot of different information, though it is still unknown who is the author. The most interesting part that speaks for itself is in bold. The third child is Blanket, his mother... According to MJ himself it was a surrogate who had a baby for him...
Yeah, nice rebuttal.
Unfortunately Michael Jackson passed to the history almost three years ago. Nowadays mythologizers put their efforts into casting MJ into a bronze statue that has to stay in history. Here I want to offer a little (well, actually it's going to be quite long...) example of how it is going on.
I'm talking about a blog called http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/. I think it has several authors and they are quite fruitful. Let's examine their reaction towards a recent interview by Scott Thorson - I wrote about it: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2012/05/more-about-scott-thorson-and-michael.html.
Here is a blogpost I'm going to analyse: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/lies-about-michael-jackson-will-scott-thorson-understand-that-blood-money-has-never-done-anyone-any-good/.
Let's start from the title of the blogpost. "LIES ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON. Will Scott Thorson blah-blah-blah..." A reader (who knows who is Scott Thorson) doesn't even need to read the post - title hints very clearly that Thorson is a liar!
Here I want to make a little nota bene: I, the author of this blog, have no idea whether Scott Thorson was telling the truth about his fling with MJ. I don't have any substantial proofs to believe in this or that option.
The question of proving is on the vindicatemj author's mind too: "However the main question which is on everyone’s mind is how to prove that Scott Thorson is telling lies about Michael Jackson". Please pay attention: the author isn't interested in finding out whether Thorson is telling the truth or not - no, the author is interested in proving that Thorson lies. Thus the whole blogpost is dedicated to proving that Thorson lied.
"The first part of the interview was about Liberace, but the public was of course interested only in Michael Jackson and held their breath waiting for the second part" - I believe that the mentioned public is actually the fans of MJ though.
The author quotes ET Online site:
http://www.etonline.com/news/121296_Liberace_s_Former_Lover_Details_Secret_Romance/index.html
The comment is as follows: "The text makes it clear that the above is taking place as a sort of a publicity campaign for the forthcoming movie about Liberace. However judging by the ET’s prelude to the story it leaves you with an uneasy feeling that the goal of the program (and movie?) is to eventually mix the names and images of MJ and Liberace together". Really?..
The author goes on discussing when exactly Scott was seduced by Liberace: at age 16 or at age 19. I would omit it, unlike the author I don't see really significant difference between 16 and 19. So, let's move (together with the author) to the second part of Thorson's interview: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance
"Let us not faint at the above" - the author urges. Err, faint?.. Mmkay.
"Scott is extremely cautious in making his allegations (interesting to find out why) and the most he says is that “the relationship crossed the boundaries” adding that this is all he is comfortable saying”"
Now I want to urge people reading this to watch the actual footage: http://www.etonline.com/news/121373_Liberace_s_Lover_Reveals_Michael_Jackson_Romance/index.html
Scott Thorson admits that he had fling with MJ only because his interviewer pressed him!
"The ET text claims that Thorson detailed the ‘relationship’ with Michael Jackson in his book and this is a flat lie told by Entertainment Tonight for which the ET can and should be directly reprimanded. Thorson’s book written in 1988 (and not in 1998!) was solely about Liberace and absolutely not about Michael Jackson, not to mention the fact that there was nothing about the alleged ‘gay’ relationship with Michael there." Surprise-surprise! Mass media is inaccurate! The author doesn't seem like someone who used to work with mass media, otherwise he (or she) would know that the people who work in mass media are actually... people. Who have plenty things on their minds other than checking what exactly and where exactly was written. Accuracy is not what journalists are known for. That's for sure!
Actually I'm going to show you that the author of the analysed blogpost is a human too. Very human. And not accurate - to say the least...
But let's continue.
"We also learn from the ET that Thorson is planning a new book where he is evidently going to develop his novel ideas about Michael Jackson" - Oh really?.. Evidently?.. OK, life will show.
"It is clear that the ET program is probing the ground to see whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him" - Err, no. It's not clear. Does ET Online co-operates with Thorson on his new book?.. Why? Pay attention at the wording: "whether Michael Jackson’s family, Estate and supporters will allow these things to be told about Michael and how far they will be allowed to go in slandering him". What "things" the author is talking about? That MJ might have had a gay fling?.. So, the author calls it "slandering"? The author is just outright homophobic. Gay sex isn't illegal in US (or in UK for that matter), isn't it? So why "slandering" then? I can imagine a possible opponent telling me: "Because it's not true!" The problem is this possible opponent has to prove first what is true and what is false and to do it using something more substantial than their emotions. Good luck to them!
The author goes on digging into history of Scott Thorson's claims about his fling with MJ. "Thorson’s story is not new. It goes back to 2004 when Michael Jackson was in the midst of his legal battle with the Arvizos and had no time or strength for disputing Scott Thorson’s ideas. His lawyer Steven Cochran angrily called the lies “false trash” and said they would take action but in the avalance that followed the story didn’t get the attention it deserved" - Dear author, your naivety kills me! MJ and his lawyers would be total idiots in case they gave "the attention it deserved". The deserved attention would create a huge tsunami of scandal around MJ and Thorson which would spiral into hell knows what. (The best way to deal with the situation was to allow the wave to calm down).
"However if you compare today’s story by Thorson with the one voiced back in 2004 you will see a decided difference – at the time, due to MJ’s vulnerability Scott’s allegations of a gay relationship with Michael Jackson were much more salacious while now he and Entertainment Tonight are much more cautious and are somewhat dancing around the theme (which makes you suspect that they are afraid of a lawsuit)" - Let's watch the video one more time. Christina McLarty was the one who was quite persistent asking Scott about the nature of his relationship with Michael. Thorson was definitely evasive, feeling uneasy about answering her questions... Does it look like he wanted to talk about his fling/whatever with MJ?.. It doesn't look so. It doesn't look "cautious" too, more like uneasy. Why uneasy?.. It's a different question. We may speculate about it, but a lawsuit... well, what laws did Thorson break here?.. I'm not a specialist in US law but I'm afraid no one would be able to sue the guy.
"The typical media report about Thorson’s story claimed that Scott had a gay affair with MJ and that this would be the crucial revelation for the child molestation case. This way the papers gave away the Prosecutors’ intentions to use the alleged MJ’s homosexuality as a bridge to paedophilia and a way to prove him to be a “boy abuser” " - The problems is the prosecution didn't do that though there were some circumstantial evidence of "the alleged MJ’s homosexuality". There are plenty of scientific and pseudo scientific discussions going on about how homosexuality and paedophilia are linked - I have no desire to go in-depth, but I'm quite sure that in case prosecution would try to prove that MJ was involved in homosexual acts with adult men the defence would provide plenty of experts who would argue about homosexuality and paedophilia to the point of exhaustion. Besides let's admit it: Scott Thorson doesn't have a reputation of a person who you're going to believe immediately.
Then the author continues making observation that there were different scandalous stories about MJ at the time the National Enquirer material with Thorson revelations appeared. The author's reasoning makes you think about some sort of a global mass media conspiracy against Michael Jackson. The reality is... The author apparently doesn't read newspapers and watch TV (or maybe he/she reads/watches only something about MJ). Otherwise he or she would know that in case something scandalous of a magnitude of MJ's trial takes place mass media makes everything possible to add fuel to the fire. That's not about Michael Jackson - that's about mass media!
Let's move to a funniest part of the vindicatemj blogpost. The author decided to analyse the National Enquirer 2004 article. (Of course the author never read the the article itself . Unfortunately I didn't save it when it was available online - but who knew?..).
"The story told by the National Enquirer was horrendous" - Horrendous?.. Really?
Here is an article the author refers to:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-04-15/gossip/18259018_1_scott-thorson-hugh-hefner-liberace "Michael “motioned him over to the bed”? He “made the first move”? He “begged Scott to leave Liberace”? And Scott said “No” to him?? Despite the fact that his love affair with Liberace was drawing to an end???" - I suspect that if the story is true Thorson probably used to kick himself for not yielding to MJ's beggings. Very soon MJ released "Thriller", meanwhile Liberace kicked Scott out. But how the author could know that Thorson knew at the time that his elderly lover is going to kick him out?..
The next quotation is epic: "Michael, that innocent little dove who even in the 90s made rounds of people’s homes with the Jehovah’s Witnesses books in his hands to preach the Gospel?" Innocent little WHO?.. And wtf the dove was doing in the 90s going door to door if he left Jehovah's Witnesses for good by the end of 80-s??? BTW can we call this slander because this information is obviously false?
"And does Scott Thorson remember what Michael was like during that period of time? Could that shy and timid guy confidently “motion” anyone to himself? Is he describing someone street smart or the painfully shy young man Michael actually was?" - How in hell the author would know what MJ was like during that period of time? This pseudo psychology is just ridiculous.
"We do not expect these liars to tell us the truth, but why can’t these people report even their lies correctly?" - I'm afraid for the very same reason why the dove used to distribute Jehovah's Witnesses literature in the 90-s.
"today’s story from the same Scott Thorson sounds much more reserved as he is simply afraid to repeat it the way it was told back in 2004" - Probably he is afraid of manic fans... It's a real possibility.
The author goes on discussing once again why Tom Sneddon wasn't interested in Thorson as a witness despite the fact that according to National Enquirer Scott saw porn magazines with young boys (btw how young?..) in MJ's possession and whether it is possible to deceive a polygraph. There is a lot of homemade psychology too: "Scott Thorson was most sophisticated in matters of sex while Michael was shy, “prissy, proper and prim” (according to Kit Culkin) and would blush at any question about sex or mere profanity as a “Victorian old maid”" - For some reason prissy, proper and prim
"He [Kit Culkin] also said that Michael was an absolute “scaredy-cat” or excessively fearful as the dictionary puts it - and this makes the story about him being so bold in a stranger’s home as to make passes at Scott look highly dubious to me" - Umm... Fear of being caught actually could turn on, besides MJ used to be bold not even in strangers' houses, but also in some public places...
"Thorson at the time was a sophisticated and street smart guy with more than 4 years of homosexual love behind his back while Michael Jackson was still a baby and a “Victorian maid” who made rounds of other people’s houses as a devout Jehovah’s Witness preaching God and the way of life according to the Bible" -
The author cites quite a well-known among fans rebuttal posted originally on a National Enquirer board by... well, by an anonymous. Supposedly someone who knew MJ in person.
Here is this message:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances.
Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott.
Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course...Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face).
They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
The serious problem of this message is that ANYONE could write it. Yeah, including a fan who NEVER even met MJ in person!
The author goes on with their analysis trying to figure out when MJ's trysts with Scott supposedly took place. It takes the author plenty of paragraphs to figure out at last that MJ was really in London at the same time as Liberace and Thorson. The author apparently doesn't know how to use google. Just google Liberace and lord Montagu and you'll stumble upon several links mentioning MJ as well. Here is a picture: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/resources/images/958444/?type=display (unfortunately it's too little, perhaps there are bigger copies somewhere in the web). Here we can see Lord Montagu, Liberace next to him, Scott Thorson on the back seat and do you recognise that guy in a fur coat?.. yeah, it's Michael Jackson! http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4462266.The_way_you_made_us_feel___an_appreciation_of_Michael_Jackson/?ref=rss
There is even footage of all four of them in this car somewhere on youtube (I'm too lazy to find it now).
"Frankly, the timeline did not convince me that Thorson could see Michael Jackson in London in the summer of 1981" - the author tells us. Would the pictures convince him/her?.. The picture of MJ, Thorson, Liberace and lord Montagu in the car was even shown during Thorson's interview to ET Online.
"How could he if Michael was there in May-September 1981 while Thorson was busy with his cocaine/murder/witness event at about the same period of time?" - Oh, Scott even didn't have time for two shags?.. It doesn't take too much time normally.
An interesting part of the blogpost to me personally was quoting of Roger Jacobs story that I referred to in my previous blogpost. I wonder whether the author managed to find it him/herself or just read my blogpost? (I tend to believe the second option since the author even wasn't able to find out whether Thorson and MJ met in London in 1981).
"Truth is the only goal worth paying, working and living for" - the author tells us. I'm impressed!
"The only thing which I don’t like about his story is that he claims that Thorson passed several polygraph tests" - ugh... So, "Roger Jacobs is a serious journalist – you can tell it by the manner of his writing", you are an ardent champion of truth, but you don't like several polygraph tests statement?.. So, does it mean that the author doesn't believe "a serious journalist" on this matter but for some reason he or she believes all other things that Jacobs has to say or does it mean that the author actually doesn't like the truth?..
It's called "twisted mind" I think.
I want to return to what I began with: facts and lies turn into myths and finally historians can't tell what was going on in the reality. Above is an example of how a fan is trying to make a myth. My goal is to try to separate myths from the reality. It doesn't matter who makes those myths: fans, journalists, haters... Inaccuracies, distortions and agendas - that's what historians always have to deal with.
Update: It seems impossible now to find messages posted on National Enquirer site in 2004. But this is supposedly a full text of message left by... errr, I don't know who. It's much longer than the text quoted on vinicatemj blog. Here it is:
Anybody who genuinely knows Michael (which is none of you), knows that Michael is straight – almost to a fault of himself, considering that he doesn’t look like the most masculine of brothas. You’re so quick to believe Scott, which is hysterical because if you knew their history, you’d know how weirded out Michael was by Scott’s advances. Michael’s not overtly homophobic, but he is old school and isn’t completely comfortable with it. However, given the nature of his profession, he has tried his best to be accepting and because he tries to be a good Christian, he does not judge, he leaves that to God. He still gets incredibly uncomfortable by advances by anything remotely male….which brings us to Scott. Scott made a pass at Michael. Michael ignored it, initially. The second time, Michael told him to back the #### off (in more polite language, of course…Michael was still quite young and sweet and innocent back in the ’80s, if a dude tried something similar NOW, he might get punched in the face). They haven’t spoken since then. The closest he ever got to Michael after about ’84 was that his boyfriend was friends with Priscilla Presley’s makeup artist. The two haven’t spoken since Scott tried to get all up on Mikey.
One may ask themselves, if his motive for coming forward now was out of some sort of moral obligation and a desire to crush MJ’s “strategy” of declaring himself heterosexual, why didn’t he come forward in 1993? Maids, cooks, ex-guards, everybody and their momma was coming forward with “claims,” why not then? Or, if the motivation behind this is genuine concern for the welfare of children and not money, why not go to the police with the things you’ve seen (i.e. Scott claiming to have seen child porn on Michael’s nightstand)?
Simple, none of it happened and Scott was still livin’ the life with all of Liberace’s dough. Poverty brings forth all sorts of “memories.” Isn’t it convenient that just as soon as his cash stash is running dry, he tells the world he had sex with Michael Jackson?
Please.
Let me break this down for you people and pay attention because I don’t like doing it more than once. Michael Jackson is thoroughly heterosexual. He does not like men. He does not like boys. He likes women over the age of 18. Shiiiiit, even before he was 18, he liked women well over the age of 18. It’s no secret within certain circles that Diana Ross was his first. The poor guy thought he was going to marry her but she fucked him over with Gene Simmons and Arne Naess. He was pretty naive back then, so he chose not to see the obvious. Then he was celibate for about 3 years, before becoming involved with a pretty, blond employee of his, an actress from a popular ’80s/early ’90s sitcom, a singer that nobody cares about anymore but was the sh.it back in the day, some groupie/secretary, June Chandler (the mother of punk bitch Jordan who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael) and, of course, Lisa Marie. Lisa Marie was the only one he allowed himself to become more than just sexually involved with since Diana, that boy was sprung. Lisa Marie, however, led him to believe they would have a family of their own, but stayed on the pill anyway because even if she said she was a rebel, the little bitch didn’t want mommy dearest to get mad at her for having a lil black child. Mike found the pills, split, messed around with a couple of other women with the goal of getting one pregnant just to hurt Lisa (he can be an as.shole sometimes, true) and eventually knocked up Debbie, which, (if I didn’t love and adore his children and think think they saved his life) I would say was probably one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He was never faithful to Debbie after they married, never even wanted to marry her but Mike doesn’t like to break his mother’s heart. He and Lisa continued having sex until 1999 (they weren’t “together,” they were just fucking), until he met his third child’s mother, fell very much in love with her, but he is his father’s son, so he wasn’t entirely faithful to her, which is why they split up shortly after she found out she was pregnant. From that time, up until right before these new bullshit allegations broke, he was pretty much a dog. No attachment, just sex. He has no time to get attached to somebody and then depressed again after they part ways now that he has his children. I doubt he has time for anybody other than his children and his lawyers now.
There, you have it. Take it or leave it, but it’s the truth. Mike would hate me for putting his business out here like this, but at least it’s accurate, unlike all of the other trash going around now. He ain’t my boss anymore, so he’s just going to have to put up with it.
Summary: Scott is full of s.hit, Michael isn’t gay and he sho’ as h.ell ain’t a pedophile.
So, here we have a lot of different information, though it is still unknown who is the author. The most interesting part that speaks for itself is in bold. The third child is Blanket, his mother... According to MJ himself it was a surrogate who had a baby for him...
Yeah, nice rebuttal.
6 Mar 2012
Arnold Klein - A Friend of Michael Jackson?
This blog is certainly not about Arnie Klein, but since he produces soo much mess around Michael Jackson's name on his FB page I'm going to write another blogpost mentioning him.
What really amazes me is that there are some people who seem to really believe Arnie's ramblings - at least judging by comments to his FB posts. He's got fans!
As you may know about a year ago Arnie started to accuse his former employees Muhammad Khilji (I'm really sorry if I make mistakes in his name) and Jason Pfeiffer of embezzling Klein's money. The sum keeps increasing: in the beginning it was 10 million dollars, the last time I checked it was 22 millions.
His next move was to sue both Khilji and Pfeiffer - they answered with counter-suits. Counter-suit of Jason Pfeiffer contained plenty of impressive details about his former boss. (Don't forget to click the links!)
I'm really unable to recall all the people Arnold Klein accused already (former employees, lawyers, etc.) and all the accusations - they appear regularly and keep becoming more and more ridiculous. (Arnie has plenty of enemies - he makes them way too easy). One of his favourite... um... villains is certainly Jason Pfeiffer. First he was just a liar and a fraud, recently he became a killer (in Klein's sick imagination of course).
In the end of 2009 it was reported that one of Klein's former employees was found dead in Los Angeles. Bruce Ayers died of acute alcohol intoxication according to his autopsy. There are some hot heads among fans of Michael Jackson who try to find some conspiracy everywhere, but upon reading the autopsy personally I didn't find anything strange in this death. Bruce Ayers wasn't found in the alley of Klein's office (Southern San Vincente Boulevard is far from the place where Klein's office situated at the time), he had an almost empty bottle of vodka with him and he was not a friend of MJ. Besides the guy was an obvious drug and alcohol abuser with fatty liver, atrophic/fibrotic pancreas and some other health problems.
Recently Arnie posted a photo of a CD autographed by Michael Jackson.
It reads: "To Bruce" - supposedly to Bruce Ayers.
"Jason gave these items to my house man Alex for massages after Bruce died. Did Bruce get help to OD" - Arnold Klein wrote as a comment to the photo.
Yeah, we have a real detective story here!
So, Klein hints that Jason Pfeiffer helped Ayers to OD. Criminal acts like this have to have a motive, don't they? Bruce Ayers died in December of 2009. He was fired in the beginning of 2009. Why would Jason Pfeiffer need his death?.. To take possession of his belongings?.. Like this CD? Um, I guess price of MJ's autographs rose after his death, but actually it's not something extremely rare, smth. to kill people for (at least for someone with millions stolen from Klein already! LOL!)
This CD reminded me of something familiar - there was an auction of Arnie's belongings in January; several CDs with autographs by MJ were auctioned: http://www.bonhams.com/usa/auction/20105/lot/1064/. Two CDs on the left look suspiciously similar to the one on the picture posted by Klein. It's difficult to me to make out what is written on those CDs, but it looks like there are different names on them - to Scott, to Jin (or Jim maybe) and "Love to Klein". I don't know what is written on the first one and I just wonder who are Scott and Jin?.. As well as why both CDs were in Klein's possession. I suspect that the situation was quite simple: once Michael Jackson signed several CDs for Arnold Klein and his entourage - including Bruce Ayers. Then Bruce Ayers was fired and left the CD in Klein's office - that's how the CD got in Arnie's possession. Though perhaps there was one more stage: the one who got the CD was Alex Rivera (he is a masseur) - just put in his pocket this property in abeyance and then returned it to Klein recently.
(I hope it was not Alex who helped Bruce Ayers to OD, I don't believe that anyone would want to help the poor guy to OD - I don't know and I can't imagine any reason for it). Who dragged Jason Pfeiffer into the story - Alex or Arnie?
Arnie Klein totally disgusts me by now.
This "friend" of MJ does almost everything that a normal friend shouldn't do: he inflates a ridiculous rumour that he might be a biological father of MJ's kids endowing the controversy around them, he speaks on TV about MJ's health (which is a breach of doctor's ethics), he does everything to harm a person who was MJ's boyfriend slandering him in every possible way and suing him... He even "outed" MJ - though it doesn't seem like Michael would be too happy about it.
The funniest - the most preposterous thing here is that some fans of Michael Jackson prefer to be on the side of Arnie Klein and to believe his lies. Arnie "admitted that he lied about relationship between MJ and Jason" - fans are eager to believe him now. It's unbearable when your world is collapsing, isn't it?..
Is Arnold Klein a friend or a foe of Michael Jackson?.. An enemy in disguise of a friend?
What this "friend" was doing to MJ throughout his life? Why was he giving MJ all those doses of Demerol during the last months of Michael's life? Why does he deny that he gave MJ Demerol on May of 2009 so furiously now? When did Michael's "relationship" with Demerol started and who helped it?
Why, why, why?..
Is it envy towards Michael's greatness, anger of a gravely ill person, pure craziness or maybe MJ stole a march on Klein? I'm afraid I'll never get an answer to this question.
What really amazes me is that there are some people who seem to really believe Arnie's ramblings - at least judging by comments to his FB posts. He's got fans!
As you may know about a year ago Arnie started to accuse his former employees Muhammad Khilji (I'm really sorry if I make mistakes in his name) and Jason Pfeiffer of embezzling Klein's money. The sum keeps increasing: in the beginning it was 10 million dollars, the last time I checked it was 22 millions.
His next move was to sue both Khilji and Pfeiffer - they answered with counter-suits. Counter-suit of Jason Pfeiffer contained plenty of impressive details about his former boss. (Don't forget to click the links!)
I'm really unable to recall all the people Arnold Klein accused already (former employees, lawyers, etc.) and all the accusations - they appear regularly and keep becoming more and more ridiculous. (Arnie has plenty of enemies - he makes them way too easy). One of his favourite... um... villains is certainly Jason Pfeiffer. First he was just a liar and a fraud, recently he became a killer (in Klein's sick imagination of course).
In the end of 2009 it was reported that one of Klein's former employees was found dead in Los Angeles. Bruce Ayers died of acute alcohol intoxication according to his autopsy. There are some hot heads among fans of Michael Jackson who try to find some conspiracy everywhere, but upon reading the autopsy personally I didn't find anything strange in this death. Bruce Ayers wasn't found in the alley of Klein's office (Southern San Vincente Boulevard is far from the place where Klein's office situated at the time), he had an almost empty bottle of vodka with him and he was not a friend of MJ. Besides the guy was an obvious drug and alcohol abuser with fatty liver, atrophic/fibrotic pancreas and some other health problems.
Recently Arnie posted a photo of a CD autographed by Michael Jackson.
"Jason gave these items to my house man Alex for massages after Bruce died. Did Bruce get help to OD" - Arnold Klein wrote as a comment to the photo.
Yeah, we have a real detective story here!
So, Klein hints that Jason Pfeiffer helped Ayers to OD. Criminal acts like this have to have a motive, don't they? Bruce Ayers died in December of 2009. He was fired in the beginning of 2009. Why would Jason Pfeiffer need his death?.. To take possession of his belongings?.. Like this CD? Um, I guess price of MJ's autographs rose after his death, but actually it's not something extremely rare, smth. to kill people for (at least for someone with millions stolen from Klein already! LOL!)
This CD reminded me of something familiar - there was an auction of Arnie's belongings in January; several CDs with autographs by MJ were auctioned: http://www.bonhams.com/usa/auction/20105/lot/1064/. Two CDs on the left look suspiciously similar to the one on the picture posted by Klein. It's difficult to me to make out what is written on those CDs, but it looks like there are different names on them - to Scott, to Jin (or Jim maybe) and "Love to Klein". I don't know what is written on the first one and I just wonder who are Scott and Jin?.. As well as why both CDs were in Klein's possession. I suspect that the situation was quite simple: once Michael Jackson signed several CDs for Arnold Klein and his entourage - including Bruce Ayers. Then Bruce Ayers was fired and left the CD in Klein's office - that's how the CD got in Arnie's possession. Though perhaps there was one more stage: the one who got the CD was Alex Rivera (he is a masseur) - just put in his pocket this property in abeyance and then returned it to Klein recently.
(I hope it was not Alex who helped Bruce Ayers to OD, I don't believe that anyone would want to help the poor guy to OD - I don't know and I can't imagine any reason for it). Who dragged Jason Pfeiffer into the story - Alex or Arnie?
Arnie Klein totally disgusts me by now.
This "friend" of MJ does almost everything that a normal friend shouldn't do: he inflates a ridiculous rumour that he might be a biological father of MJ's kids endowing the controversy around them, he speaks on TV about MJ's health (which is a breach of doctor's ethics), he does everything to harm a person who was MJ's boyfriend slandering him in every possible way and suing him... He even "outed" MJ - though it doesn't seem like Michael would be too happy about it.
The funniest - the most preposterous thing here is that some fans of Michael Jackson prefer to be on the side of Arnie Klein and to believe his lies. Arnie "admitted that he lied about relationship between MJ and Jason" - fans are eager to believe him now. It's unbearable when your world is collapsing, isn't it?..
Is Arnold Klein a friend or a foe of Michael Jackson?.. An enemy in disguise of a friend?
What this "friend" was doing to MJ throughout his life? Why was he giving MJ all those doses of Demerol during the last months of Michael's life? Why does he deny that he gave MJ Demerol on May of 2009 so furiously now? When did Michael's "relationship" with Demerol started and who helped it?
Why, why, why?..
Is it envy towards Michael's greatness, anger of a gravely ill person, pure craziness or maybe MJ stole a march on Klein? I'm afraid I'll never get an answer to this question.
17 Nov 2011
Michael Jackson Film
I learnt recently that there is an idea to make a movie - a biopic about MJ: http://www.variety.com/article/vr1118046177?refcatid=4154
I wouldn't say that this idea really thrills me: neither I can imagine an actor for the main part, nor I can imagine an interesting scenario.
I have another idea, though it is for a documentary (producers and directors - heyyy!!! If you need someone for a scenario - I'm available!)
Just imagine it: to gather people who actually knew MJ - his parents, siblings, relatives, friends, employees, ex-wives, kids, business partners, lovers, doctors, accusers, colleagues - those who love and those who hate him - and to ask each of them separately the same list of questions. Rough list of some of what could be asked you may find here: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about.html. Those questions must be very precise!
Isn't it going to be hilarious?!. Just imagine: different people telling completely different things about MJ?!.
I would totally LOVE to watch such a documentary!
I wouldn't say that this idea really thrills me: neither I can imagine an actor for the main part, nor I can imagine an interesting scenario.
I have another idea, though it is for a documentary (producers and directors - heyyy!!! If you need someone for a scenario - I'm available!)
Just imagine it: to gather people who actually knew MJ - his parents, siblings, relatives, friends, employees, ex-wives, kids, business partners, lovers, doctors, accusers, colleagues - those who love and those who hate him - and to ask each of them separately the same list of questions. Rough list of some of what could be asked you may find here: http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about.html. Those questions must be very precise!
Isn't it going to be hilarious?!. Just imagine: different people telling completely different things about MJ?!.
I would totally LOVE to watch such a documentary!
9 Sept 2011
Why Do I Believe Jason Pfeiffer
How many people on Earth believe that Jason Pfeiffer was a boyfriend of Michael Jackson? Umm... I'm afraid their number is under one hundred. (Well, of course most people couldn't care less!) And yes, I'm among this minority.
Why do I find Jason Pfeiffer to be believable?
No, not because I find it cool to be in the minority and to feel like an initiate. And not just because Jason Pfeiffer is a great guy. And not even because I always thought that MJ was as gay as they come.
The first time I heard about Jason Pfeiffer's existence was about two years ago, when Australian magazine "Woman's Day" published this article and some other news outlets published similar stories. According to the comments most people didn't believe it. For different reasons - either they thought that Jason Pfeiffer was too old, weighted too much or simply was of a wrong gender.
Did I pay attention to those articles? "It's so unbelievable that it must be true" - I told myself. And I started to make research. First of all I found out that Jason Pfeiffer was a real person (yeah, lol!) and he really worked for Arnold Klein. I was paying quite close attention to Dr. Klein at the time because of rumors of him being a biological father of MJ's children. I read his twitter, and one day Klein gave a link to Jason's twitter referring to him as "a very good friend" of MJ. I started to read Jason's twits as well, though there were just a few.
There were not a lot of events until late April of the next year. As I learnt later in October of the previous year journalist Alicia Jacobs made two interviews - one with Jason Pfeiffer, the other one - with his boss Arnold Klein. Several months later Alicia Jacobs sold those interviews to Extra TV. They were edited to death and were meant to be shown in two parts. First part was really shown, the second part was never aired - for an unknown reason. (Alicia Jacobs later put to her blog a little bit more extended version than the one which is on the site of Extra, but it doesn't exist anymore unfortunately. There was a cameo of Dr. Klein in it. I'll return to it later). TMZ and Arnie added fuel to the fire several days later.
Fans were desperate! "Fat lying bastards" were the nicest epithets applied to Pfeiffer and Klein. Weirdest gossips started to circulate on fan boards: for example that Klein and Pfeiffer were lovers and MJ found them together doing something inappropriate in his bathroom. And much more. Fans hate when people tell weird and disrespectful things about Michael Jackson, but they do exactly the same to other people. Well, I was reading it, laughing in front of my computer and slowly continuing my research.
Right before the Extra piece was to be aired Jason Pfeiffer deleted his twitter account - not to be bombarded with hateful comments I believe. Later I found Jason's facebook account and tried to add him as a friend. To my surprise Jason added me. What was the first thing I started to do? Of course I started to read Jason's wall. And I found out that his friends were presenting their condolences to Jason right after MJ's passing. (Two months before the story about MJ and Jason being boyfriends first broke). Would people present their condolences to a person in case one of the clients of this person's boss would die?.. More than doubtfully. I will not quote anything here - I find it not ethical. But my doubts were almost completely dismissed.
After the Extra scandal broke a guy named Paul Camuso who had a twitter account and was followed by both Jason Pfeiffer and Arnold Klein started to defend them and even decided to make a non-edited interview with Jason. This interview was never put on Youtube, but later Paul Camuso mentioned on his twitter that there is a site where one can read transcript of the original interview that Alicia Jacobs made with Jason Pfeiffer. I was looking for it desperately but couldn't find until someone in the vast ocean of Internet mentioned the title of the site. Finally I found it - http://thetruthaboutmichael.com/. (Later I learnt that it was made by Paul Camuso and Arnold Klein, but I had no idea at the time). You can still find full transcript of the interview that Jason Pfeiffer gave to Alicia Jacobs. At the time there was also another transcript - interview that Dr. Arnold Klein gave to his friend Alicia on the same occasion (and it makes you wonder why it was deleted later, doesn't it?)
Meanwhile Jason Pfeiffer deleted (suspended) his facebook account - I had no idea why.
I started this blog about the same time.
Nothing really interesting was going on until the spring. I learnt that Arnie Klein filed for bankruptcy and I couldn't find Jason's name on Klein's clinic site anymore. Transcript of Klein's interview disappeared from thetruthaboutmichael.com. I had no idea what was happening until I saw this note on Arnie's fb:
Michael was not gay
by Arnold W. Klein on Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Michael Jackson's sexuality? I do not believe at this time there is any evidence to indicate that he was gay. Jason Pfeiffer an ex-emloyee of mine together with a lawyer,my ex-accountant and a shady busines man sold the story of Jason's so-called affair with Michael to the foreign press as well as the US media. I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. I apologize to Michael's family for any damage this might have caused. Nevertheless, I feel the accusations of Michael's so called pedophilia forced him to live a tortured life with even his own sister accusing him of this behavior.
Unfortunately I didn't make a screenshot, Klein deleted his post very soon.
It was posted close to 1 of April, but not exactly on 1 of April, so I guess it wasn't supposed to be a joke.
And I wrote this blogpost - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-that-weed-too-it-must-be-good.html.
I had every reason to be ironic in it.
I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. - Arnie wrote.*
Unfortunately I read his interview to Alicia. And I saved it.
This is what Arnie was telling Alicia at the time:
This is the phrase that Arnie said in Extra spot:
When you see two people looking at each other you know what's happening. I was just very happy for both of them.
I saw it and I've heard it on the video Alicia Jacobs put to her blog. And I tend to believe my eyes and my ears.
And now our doctor is telling us that he recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer.
Recently???
Umm, so he saw MJ together with Jason, he was aware about their love affair/fling/whatever, but now he couldn't remember it?..
So, what happened to the absent-minded doctor?
The answer was found on his fb a couple of days later:
A lot of letters, but the most important thing is that Arnold Klein started to accuse his former employees in embezzling over 10 million dollars.
It's not comme il faut that a guy who I accuse of stealing my money was a boyfriend of my best friend Michael Jackson. No way. So I need to say that the story was fabricated. Paul Camuso, my staunch adorer, will confirm it - Arnie Klein decided. (I have no idea whether Arnold Klein was even doing it consciously. Really. There're people who start to believe in their own fantasies and lies. I suspect that Arnie Klein is one of them).
Of course after reading all of these obvious lies and accusations by Dr. Klein I had a lot of things to think about and I wrote the post that I mentioned already - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-that-weed-too-it-must-be-good.html.
As you may notice I was asking some rhetorical questions in the end of it. Rhetorical questions are not supposed to be answered... But not these questions.
Several days or even weeks later someone left a comment asking how to contact me. When this person sent me an e-mail I had to pick up my jaw from the floor - it was Jason Pfeiffer himself. Willing to answer my rhetorical questions.
Unfortunately Jason Pfeiffer wasn't able to tell me how to embezzle 10 million dollars. He doesn't know. My bad luck - as always! But he answered a lot of my questions.
Why Jason Pfeiffer contacted me? - I asked myself. Let's assume he really stole several million bucks from his former employer. Why would a fraud contact me to tell he is innocent? I'm not a famous blogger who can influence public opinion, my blog isn't exactly popular - what would a liar gain here? The easiest way to understand a person and their motives is to put yourself in their shoes. It's an old and a banal rule, but it works. If I were a fraud who stole from my ex-boss - would I contact someone who wrote in a blog: "Please tell me how to embezzle money somewhere!"? No. (Later I wrote a blogpost about Stacy Brown where I caught him in a lie - you know he never contacted me to explain it. Dr. Klein didn't contact me too. Well, of course I'm not delusional, I don't expect people who I write about to read my blog!)
Later Jason Pfeiffer decided to make his own blog to express his position in all this mess that he found himself in thanks to Arnie Klein and general homophobia. Actually his blog is mostly dedicated to his former boss - with whom he has litigation going on. He never denied his relationships with Michael Jackson. He is just telling the truth. To be just truthful... It's sooo weird nowadays.
Unfortunately being close to Michael Jackson is a curse - Jason Pfeiffer received fans' hatred in full and even death threats. After Arnie Klein claimed on his fb that MJ was not gay (and apprehensively deleted it later) it was much more wise for Jason to say that Michael was not his boyfriend and that his former boss Dr. Klein forced him to invent this story to gather some publicity for Arnie. And to let the fans to heave a sigh of relief. He didn't. He chose to tell the truth and to be just coherent.
What is my goal in writing of all of this? Do I expect the fans to believe me? No. I'm way too old and too non-delusional to expect something like that. I rather expect to be called a hater like I was called already on a fan board where my blog was mentioned. A hater?.. I find hate to be too strong of a feeling not to be bored with it very soon. Besides who do I hate? Michael Jackson? It can't be further from the truth. Do I want to "out" Michael Jackson? See above. Actually I write this blogpost to give a link to someone who would ask why do I find Jason Pfeiffer believable.
* Side note - the funniest thing that there was really a ghost writer involved. And this ghost writer was none other than Paul Camuso. Relationships nowadays lack romanticism - you know... But romanticism still sells good. And Jason Pfeiffer didn't give me an impression of a person who is eager to talk about his feelings and emotions.
Why do I find Jason Pfeiffer to be believable?
No, not because I find it cool to be in the minority and to feel like an initiate. And not just because Jason Pfeiffer is a great guy. And not even because I always thought that MJ was as gay as they come.
The first time I heard about Jason Pfeiffer's existence was about two years ago, when Australian magazine "Woman's Day" published this article and some other news outlets published similar stories. According to the comments most people didn't believe it. For different reasons - either they thought that Jason Pfeiffer was too old, weighted too much or simply was of a wrong gender.
Did I pay attention to those articles? "It's so unbelievable that it must be true" - I told myself. And I started to make research. First of all I found out that Jason Pfeiffer was a real person (yeah, lol!) and he really worked for Arnold Klein. I was paying quite close attention to Dr. Klein at the time because of rumors of him being a biological father of MJ's children. I read his twitter, and one day Klein gave a link to Jason's twitter referring to him as "a very good friend" of MJ. I started to read Jason's twits as well, though there were just a few.
There were not a lot of events until late April of the next year. As I learnt later in October of the previous year journalist Alicia Jacobs made two interviews - one with Jason Pfeiffer, the other one - with his boss Arnold Klein. Several months later Alicia Jacobs sold those interviews to Extra TV. They were edited to death and were meant to be shown in two parts. First part was really shown, the second part was never aired - for an unknown reason. (Alicia Jacobs later put to her blog a little bit more extended version than the one which is on the site of Extra, but it doesn't exist anymore unfortunately. There was a cameo of Dr. Klein in it. I'll return to it later). TMZ and Arnie added fuel to the fire several days later.
Fans were desperate! "Fat lying bastards" were the nicest epithets applied to Pfeiffer and Klein. Weirdest gossips started to circulate on fan boards: for example that Klein and Pfeiffer were lovers and MJ found them together doing something inappropriate in his bathroom. And much more. Fans hate when people tell weird and disrespectful things about Michael Jackson, but they do exactly the same to other people. Well, I was reading it, laughing in front of my computer and slowly continuing my research.
Right before the Extra piece was to be aired Jason Pfeiffer deleted his twitter account - not to be bombarded with hateful comments I believe. Later I found Jason's facebook account and tried to add him as a friend. To my surprise Jason added me. What was the first thing I started to do? Of course I started to read Jason's wall. And I found out that his friends were presenting their condolences to Jason right after MJ's passing. (Two months before the story about MJ and Jason being boyfriends first broke). Would people present their condolences to a person in case one of the clients of this person's boss would die?.. More than doubtfully. I will not quote anything here - I find it not ethical. But my doubts were almost completely dismissed.
After the Extra scandal broke a guy named Paul Camuso who had a twitter account and was followed by both Jason Pfeiffer and Arnold Klein started to defend them and even decided to make a non-edited interview with Jason. This interview was never put on Youtube, but later Paul Camuso mentioned on his twitter that there is a site where one can read transcript of the original interview that Alicia Jacobs made with Jason Pfeiffer. I was looking for it desperately but couldn't find until someone in the vast ocean of Internet mentioned the title of the site. Finally I found it - http://thetruthaboutmichael.com/. (Later I learnt that it was made by Paul Camuso and Arnold Klein, but I had no idea at the time). You can still find full transcript of the interview that Jason Pfeiffer gave to Alicia Jacobs. At the time there was also another transcript - interview that Dr. Arnold Klein gave to his friend Alicia on the same occasion (and it makes you wonder why it was deleted later, doesn't it?)
Meanwhile Jason Pfeiffer deleted (suspended) his facebook account - I had no idea why.
I started this blog about the same time.
Nothing really interesting was going on until the spring. I learnt that Arnie Klein filed for bankruptcy and I couldn't find Jason's name on Klein's clinic site anymore. Transcript of Klein's interview disappeared from thetruthaboutmichael.com. I had no idea what was happening until I saw this note on Arnie's fb:
Michael was not gay
by Arnold W. Klein on Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Michael Jackson's sexuality? I do not believe at this time there is any evidence to indicate that he was gay. Jason Pfeiffer an ex-emloyee of mine together with a lawyer,my ex-accountant and a shady busines man sold the story of Jason's so-called affair with Michael to the foreign press as well as the US media. I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. I apologize to Michael's family for any damage this might have caused. Nevertheless, I feel the accusations of Michael's so called pedophilia forced him to live a tortured life with even his own sister accusing him of this behavior.
Unfortunately I didn't make a screenshot, Klein deleted his post very soon.
It was posted close to 1 of April, but not exactly on 1 of April, so I guess it wasn't supposed to be a joke.
And I wrote this blogpost - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-that-weed-too-it-must-be-good.html.
I had every reason to be ironic in it.
I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. - Arnie wrote.*
Unfortunately I read his interview to Alicia. And I saved it.
This is what Arnie was telling Alicia at the time:
This is the phrase that Arnie said in Extra spot:
When you see two people looking at each other you know what's happening. I was just very happy for both of them.
I saw it and I've heard it on the video Alicia Jacobs put to her blog. And I tend to believe my eyes and my ears.
And now our doctor is telling us that he recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer.
Recently???
Umm, so he saw MJ together with Jason, he was aware about their love affair/fling/whatever, but now he couldn't remember it?..
So, what happened to the absent-minded doctor?
The answer was found on his fb a couple of days later:
The publicity, the embezzlement, the defamation, the whole story
What is the point here ? The point is Harvey Levin is a totally dishonest human being who knew very well I had no part in the death of Michael Jackson. He knew very well Steven Hoefflin had been reported to be responsible for Michael's addiction. Furthermore, my lawyer, Howard Weitzman, Harvey Levin's closest friend, was fully aware of Hoefflin's behavior. When AEG hired Michael Jackson and Murray as his doctor they enabled an individual totally unfamiliar with the proper administration of this drug to give Mr Jackson Propofol every night. Frank DeLeo was present in Gothenburg Sweden where Hoefflin was giving Michael Propofol. Finally my lawyer Richard Charmley (together with Brad Boyer) illegally released Michael Jackson's medical records in court to get the $55,000 owed to me paid. This was done not to get me paid but to allow Murray to know what I did and keep news reporters at my office and homes.Additionally Charmley had told me that Mr Phillips of AEG wanted to work with me, Within a week I received a full copy of Michael's records sent to me mistakenly by Charmley. Richard Charmley also emailed a copy of these records to Randy Phillips according to individual's at AEG. Furthermore, Charmley was closely involved with Muhammed Khilji, Jason Pfeiffer, in embezzling over 10 million dollars from me. To continue the insane publicity enabled them to keep me away from my office and steal more and more money.Muhammed Khilji is a Pakistani Moslem. These people use a monetary transfer method called Hawala which was used to subsidize 9/11 and Mumbai. This is a terrorist act and the way Muhammed embezzled my funds and forced into bankruptcy. This bankruptcy will not prevent me from practicing but it is beyond my comprehension that both Andrew Whorton and Michael DeGeus of the homeland security division of the Secret Service have not been of any assistance to me in dealing with this situation.A lot of letters, but the most important thing is that Arnold Klein started to accuse his former employees in embezzling over 10 million dollars.
It's not comme il faut that a guy who I accuse of stealing my money was a boyfriend of my best friend Michael Jackson. No way. So I need to say that the story was fabricated. Paul Camuso, my staunch adorer, will confirm it - Arnie Klein decided. (I have no idea whether Arnold Klein was even doing it consciously. Really. There're people who start to believe in their own fantasies and lies. I suspect that Arnie Klein is one of them).
Of course after reading all of these obvious lies and accusations by Dr. Klein I had a lot of things to think about and I wrote the post that I mentioned already - http://acoupleofthoughs.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-want-that-weed-too-it-must-be-good.html.
As you may notice I was asking some rhetorical questions in the end of it. Rhetorical questions are not supposed to be answered... But not these questions.
Several days or even weeks later someone left a comment asking how to contact me. When this person sent me an e-mail I had to pick up my jaw from the floor - it was Jason Pfeiffer himself. Willing to answer my rhetorical questions.
Unfortunately Jason Pfeiffer wasn't able to tell me how to embezzle 10 million dollars. He doesn't know. My bad luck - as always! But he answered a lot of my questions.
Why Jason Pfeiffer contacted me? - I asked myself. Let's assume he really stole several million bucks from his former employer. Why would a fraud contact me to tell he is innocent? I'm not a famous blogger who can influence public opinion, my blog isn't exactly popular - what would a liar gain here? The easiest way to understand a person and their motives is to put yourself in their shoes. It's an old and a banal rule, but it works. If I were a fraud who stole from my ex-boss - would I contact someone who wrote in a blog: "Please tell me how to embezzle money somewhere!"? No. (Later I wrote a blogpost about Stacy Brown where I caught him in a lie - you know he never contacted me to explain it. Dr. Klein didn't contact me too. Well, of course I'm not delusional, I don't expect people who I write about to read my blog!)
Later Jason Pfeiffer decided to make his own blog to express his position in all this mess that he found himself in thanks to Arnie Klein and general homophobia. Actually his blog is mostly dedicated to his former boss - with whom he has litigation going on. He never denied his relationships with Michael Jackson. He is just telling the truth. To be just truthful... It's sooo weird nowadays.
Unfortunately being close to Michael Jackson is a curse - Jason Pfeiffer received fans' hatred in full and even death threats. After Arnie Klein claimed on his fb that MJ was not gay (and apprehensively deleted it later) it was much more wise for Jason to say that Michael was not his boyfriend and that his former boss Dr. Klein forced him to invent this story to gather some publicity for Arnie. And to let the fans to heave a sigh of relief. He didn't. He chose to tell the truth and to be just coherent.
What is my goal in writing of all of this? Do I expect the fans to believe me? No. I'm way too old and too non-delusional to expect something like that. I rather expect to be called a hater like I was called already on a fan board where my blog was mentioned. A hater?.. I find hate to be too strong of a feeling not to be bored with it very soon. Besides who do I hate? Michael Jackson? It can't be further from the truth. Do I want to "out" Michael Jackson? See above. Actually I write this blogpost to give a link to someone who would ask why do I find Jason Pfeiffer believable.
* Side note - the funniest thing that there was really a ghost writer involved. And this ghost writer was none other than Paul Camuso. Relationships nowadays lack romanticism - you know... But romanticism still sells good. And Jason Pfeiffer didn't give me an impression of a person who is eager to talk about his feelings and emotions.
6 Jun 2011
A Myth That Has To Be Put To Rest
There is one chapter in Michael Jackson saga that is surrounded by a lot of drama (and comedy - as it has to be in any good novel) - paternity of Michael's kids. MJ's kids turned out to be quite light-skinned and their hair is not too curly. Based on this fact plenty of people think that MJ just couldn't be their biological father... Despite the fact that MJ was not entirely black, but a mixture of black (unfortunately it is too hard to find relevant and precise information about his ancestry), American Indian, white and even chinese. He had his first two kids with a white woman (and not just a caucasian, but a pale-skinned, straight-haired blue-eyed natural blond) and who is the mother of his youngest son is a mystery (it could be a mystery to MJ himself, lol!)
Some people claim that the bio father of MJ's kids is Arnold W. Klein, his dermtologist (well, there are some other... um... "fathers" too...). Jason Pfeiffer, his former employee, shed light on Klein's "paternity".
Please follow this link: http://jasonpfeiffer.blogspot.com/2011/06/paternity.html#comments
I sincerely hope that at least some people will rub their eyes open and realise that none of MJ's three kids has anything in common with Arnold Klein...
Some people claim that the bio father of MJ's kids is Arnold W. Klein, his dermtologist (well, there are some other... um... "fathers" too...). Jason Pfeiffer, his former employee, shed light on Klein's "paternity".
Please follow this link: http://jasonpfeiffer.blogspot.com/2011/06/paternity.html#comments
I sincerely hope that at least some people will rub their eyes open and realise that none of MJ's three kids has anything in common with Arnold Klein...
29 May 2011
How to read
I decided to write about how to read and understand articles (and other mass media stuff). It will be connected with MJ (since this blog is about him), but he is only an example here.
This is an article by Maureen Orth from Vanity Fair magazine. It is very old, but at least it is not too long to put its analisys here.
I will quote parts in italics that I will make comments on.
I will skip almost all of the first paragraph, though why Lisa Marie is called "bride", she and MJ were already married for a year (cultural differences?..)
When the show ended, many with a detailed knowledge of the case were appalled by what ABC News had allowed Jackson to get away with
Who were those "many"?
and by Sawyer's lack of preparation or her inability to follow up within the format dictated by the Jackson forces
Lol at lack of preparation - lack of preparation for interviews is a normal state for most of journalists, even those who are paid huge sums of money for their blabbing in front of TV cameras.
Controversy raged for days over the way ABC had bent network news standards to accommodate Jackson's many demands
Did they really bent something or it was just lack of preparation - as always? Maureen needs to make her mind on the subject.
not to mention the outcry over the cruel revenge tone and anti-Semitic lyrics in his songs
I believe the mentioned songs is actually "Scream". (Being a foreigner and having very limited knowledge on american slang I will stay out of discussion about controversial lyrics of this song).
Sources close to the family of the boy allegedly molested have said that they are considering whether Jackson's specific references to the sexual allegations in the case were a breach of the contract reached in the enormous settlement he paid for his young accuser to drop the charges.
Who are those sources?
Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who has seen the photographs of Jackson's genitalia, was upset enough after watching Sawyer's interview to speak to me on the record. "Regarding the markings," Sneddon says, "his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case."
Did these markings exist or didn they not exist, did Jordan's description match or did it not... Very hazily.
Others familiar with the evidence are more forthcoming. They say there are definite markings on Jackson's genital area, including a discoloration on his testicles.
Who are those others familiar with the evidence? Is it Sneddon himself who asked Maureen Orth not to disclose him as a source of information, was it someone who took part in the investigation and saw photos or was present during the strip search, was it someone familiar with the evidence (that is MJ's genitalia - lol!) or was it Maureen Orth herself who scratched her head and decided to write smth. that would look interesting?
(Jackson admitted in his live interview with Oprah Winfrey in February 1993 that he suffers from the skin disorder vitiligo, which causes discoloration.)
As my knowledge of English allows me to understand discoloration means lighter spot on a darker surface. And yes, vitiligo means appearance of white spots on skin - they are white or lighter than other parts of skin because they lack melanin - pigment that colours our skin.
According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson's penis.
Um... I'm confused. Why dark spot?.. If it is discoloration - it must be light!
By the way is it possible to read those sworn affidavits? I would love to.
The boy who had accused Jackson of sexually molesting him, according to those familiar with the evidence, was able to draw—first for the district attorney, then for his own lawyers—an accurate picture of the dark spot on Jackson's penis. The boy's drawings were sealed in an envelope and clearly postmarked on a postal meter before the police ever photographed Jackson. According to these sources, the boy's drawings were an accurate match of the photographs.
I'm still interested who ar those familiar with the evidence. Was information about accurate match contained in those above mentioned affidavits? Did those who were present during the strip search knew how Jordan's drawing looked? Did Maureen Orth get this information directly from Tom Sneddon who I believe saw both the drawing and MJ's private parts?
The boy got "in excess of $25 million," according to sources close to the family, and his parents were also paid off in the millions.
Those sources close to the family were not very correct, Jordan got only little bit more than 15 million.
People close to the investigation say that Jackson's lawyers kept putting off any depositions, and agreed to settle the night before Jackson was to have been put under oath.
Once again: who are those people?
In answering a civil case in which five former bodyguards accused Jackson of firing them because "they knew too much," Jackson did invoke the Fifth Amendment on the subject of alleged child molestation. The suit, dismissed since the PrimeTime Live interview, was not mentioned by Sawyer.
There were plenty of people who used to sue MJ for different reasons - did Sawer had to mention everybody?.. (And I think it is believed to be more appropriate to kill those who "know too much", not to fire them).
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 "at play," and according to one, that book "is often found in the home of pedophiles."
Lewd?.. It depends on viewer's opinion. As far as I remember there were one or two books seized from Neverland which really contain pictures of undressed or scantily dressed kids. Perhaps police really often finds those books in the home of pedophiles, though those books are not pornographic.
Law-enforcement sources, however, confirm that there is another boy who has a lawyer and is currently negotiating a settlement with Jackson. Of the boys mentioned in the district attorneys' press release who accused Jackson of sexual misconduct and who are unwilling to testify, Sneddon says, "The status regarding these two is basically the same."
At one point Sawyer said, "None of the employees who claimed to have seen questionable things had a story that could be confirmed by a child." Again, Sawyer is contradicted by law-enforcement sources. Two years ago, Jackson's personal maid, Blanca Francia, told police, the Los Angeles Times, and the tabloid TV show Hard Copy that she had seen Jackson a number of times in the nude with young boys and found a picture of an apparently nude boy in Jackson's room. Under oath she also said she found Jackson in bed with several boys, and a young boy with him in the same sleeping bag. She discovered $300 in the boy's pocket (which he had admitted Jackson had given to him).
Actually those multiple boys was Blanca Francia's son.
The boy himself, according to sources close to the case, was considering going into the witness-protection program—such was his fear of the retribution he would suffer by publicly alleging that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
Who are these sources close to the case?
The witness-protection-program idea fell through, however, when neither state nor federal authorities offered it
Hm, why?
While Jackson has gone on to marry and become the stepfather of Elvis Presley's grandchildren, Jackson's close involvement with the boy ultimately ripped the boy's floundering family apart. After the settlement, the second marriages of both his parents ended in divorce. The boy no longer sees or speaks to his mother, whom he blames for allowing Jackson to become so intimate with him. He has not seen his eight-year-old sister in two years, or his stepfather, who essentially raised him. Now 15, the boy lives with his stepmother. He is not in therapy. He continues to have a relationship with his father, who was accused by Jackson's side of extortion but whom authorities declined to prosecute, saying there was not enough evidence—another fact not mentioned by Diane Sawyer. The boy's father and stepfather, once friends, are now suing each other.
Source???
Liz Smith has reported that Jackson wanted Princess Diana to be with him on the Sawyer interview, to commiserate about the sufferings imposed by tabloid coverage, and that he queried the British Embassy in Washington about being knighted by the Queen for "his work with little children." According to an observer, he actually was working behind the scenes to see if the Queen would knight him right there on PrimeTime Live.
Who is Liz Smith and where did she get her information from?
ABC News's credibility was seriously undermined when it was revealed that the network had electronically altered a pre-taped segment of Jackson because he didn't care for the way the lighting cast lines on his face.
What some lines on a face have to do with credibility?
Executives at CBS and NBC said that Jackson's handlers had clearly been looking for a "package." (In the interest of full disclosure, my husband, Tim Russert, is Washington-bureau chief of NBC News, with no responsibility for prime-time programming.) A producer from one network told me, "It's difficult to pretend there was no quid pro quo in the ABC deal. Jackson's people approached a bunch of us. Basically they said, 'Come back to us with a proposition, and not just what you can do with your news division—that is not enough.'"
I guess I understood! This article is an impact from Maureen Orth to ABC! (Or to Diane Sawyer personally. Or both.) Journalists' undercarpet fights? Boring, sorry.
In addition, Sawyer had "get-togethers" with Jackson and Presley before the expensively produced interview, which is not her usual practice.
Here Maureen Orth tries to emphasize that Sawyer was not unbiased towards MJ.
Oh yes, this interview was a deal - so what?.. Maureen Orth was not born yesterday (I suspect), some of her readers were not born yesterday as well.
And contrary to news-show procedures, the air-conditioning remained on loud while Sawyer interviewed Jackson, causing a strange background noise. The cool air was necessary, veteran soundmen say, because the lights on Jackson were so hot that his thick pancake makeup and lipstick would have melted otherwise, and his false eyelashes would have come off.
Looool, so normally people who are interviewed have to sweat like marathon runners under heating sun?.. Great practice!
"I have no idea what the purpose of her show is," District Attorney Sneddon wondered, somewhat taken aback after having spent three hours on a Saturday afternoon helping to prime one of Sawyer's producers. "Is it the Evening News or Hard Copy?" Good question. Whatever it was, 60 million Americans and untold millions around the world got something less than the truth.
What was the purpose of the article? To butt ABC and Diane Sawyer or to throw a stone at MJ? Or both? Well, I believe honorarium was a serious factor too!
This is an article by Maureen Orth from Vanity Fair magazine. It is very old, but at least it is not too long to put its analisys here.
I will quote parts in italics that I will make comments on.
I will skip almost all of the first paragraph, though why Lisa Marie is called "bride", she and MJ were already married for a year (cultural differences?..)
When the show ended, many with a detailed knowledge of the case were appalled by what ABC News had allowed Jackson to get away with
Who were those "many"?
and by Sawyer's lack of preparation or her inability to follow up within the format dictated by the Jackson forces
Lol at lack of preparation - lack of preparation for interviews is a normal state for most of journalists, even those who are paid huge sums of money for their blabbing in front of TV cameras.
Controversy raged for days over the way ABC had bent network news standards to accommodate Jackson's many demands
Did they really bent something or it was just lack of preparation - as always? Maureen needs to make her mind on the subject.
not to mention the outcry over the cruel revenge tone and anti-Semitic lyrics in his songs
I believe the mentioned songs is actually "Scream". (Being a foreigner and having very limited knowledge on american slang I will stay out of discussion about controversial lyrics of this song).
Sources close to the family of the boy allegedly molested have said that they are considering whether Jackson's specific references to the sexual allegations in the case were a breach of the contract reached in the enormous settlement he paid for his young accuser to drop the charges.
Who are those sources?
Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who has seen the photographs of Jackson's genitalia, was upset enough after watching Sawyer's interview to speak to me on the record. "Regarding the markings," Sneddon says, "his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case."
Did these markings exist or didn they not exist, did Jordan's description match or did it not... Very hazily.
Others familiar with the evidence are more forthcoming. They say there are definite markings on Jackson's genital area, including a discoloration on his testicles.
Who are those others familiar with the evidence? Is it Sneddon himself who asked Maureen Orth not to disclose him as a source of information, was it someone who took part in the investigation and saw photos or was present during the strip search, was it someone familiar with the evidence (that is MJ's genitalia - lol!) or was it Maureen Orth herself who scratched her head and decided to write smth. that would look interesting?
(Jackson admitted in his live interview with Oprah Winfrey in February 1993 that he suffers from the skin disorder vitiligo, which causes discoloration.)
As my knowledge of English allows me to understand discoloration means lighter spot on a darker surface. And yes, vitiligo means appearance of white spots on skin - they are white or lighter than other parts of skin because they lack melanin - pigment that colours our skin.
According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson's penis.
Um... I'm confused. Why dark spot?.. If it is discoloration - it must be light!
By the way is it possible to read those sworn affidavits? I would love to.
The boy who had accused Jackson of sexually molesting him, according to those familiar with the evidence, was able to draw—first for the district attorney, then for his own lawyers—an accurate picture of the dark spot on Jackson's penis. The boy's drawings were sealed in an envelope and clearly postmarked on a postal meter before the police ever photographed Jackson. According to these sources, the boy's drawings were an accurate match of the photographs.
I'm still interested who ar those familiar with the evidence. Was information about accurate match contained in those above mentioned affidavits? Did those who were present during the strip search knew how Jordan's drawing looked? Did Maureen Orth get this information directly from Tom Sneddon who I believe saw both the drawing and MJ's private parts?
The boy got "in excess of $25 million," according to sources close to the family, and his parents were also paid off in the millions.
Those sources close to the family were not very correct, Jordan got only little bit more than 15 million.
People close to the investigation say that Jackson's lawyers kept putting off any depositions, and agreed to settle the night before Jackson was to have been put under oath.
Once again: who are those people?
In answering a civil case in which five former bodyguards accused Jackson of firing them because "they knew too much," Jackson did invoke the Fifth Amendment on the subject of alleged child molestation. The suit, dismissed since the PrimeTime Live interview, was not mentioned by Sawyer.
There were plenty of people who used to sue MJ for different reasons - did Sawer had to mention everybody?.. (And I think it is believed to be more appropriate to kill those who "know too much", not to fire them).
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 "at play," and according to one, that book "is often found in the home of pedophiles."
Lewd?.. It depends on viewer's opinion. As far as I remember there were one or two books seized from Neverland which really contain pictures of undressed or scantily dressed kids. Perhaps police really often finds those books in the home of pedophiles, though those books are not pornographic.
Law-enforcement sources, however, confirm that there is another boy who has a lawyer and is currently negotiating a settlement with Jackson. Of the boys mentioned in the district attorneys' press release who accused Jackson of sexual misconduct and who are unwilling to testify, Sneddon says, "The status regarding these two is basically the same."
At one point Sawyer said, "None of the employees who claimed to have seen questionable things had a story that could be confirmed by a child." Again, Sawyer is contradicted by law-enforcement sources. Two years ago, Jackson's personal maid, Blanca Francia, told police, the Los Angeles Times, and the tabloid TV show Hard Copy that she had seen Jackson a number of times in the nude with young boys and found a picture of an apparently nude boy in Jackson's room. Under oath she also said she found Jackson in bed with several boys, and a young boy with him in the same sleeping bag. She discovered $300 in the boy's pocket (which he had admitted Jackson had given to him).
Actually those multiple boys was Blanca Francia's son.
The boy himself, according to sources close to the case, was considering going into the witness-protection program—such was his fear of the retribution he would suffer by publicly alleging that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
Who are these sources close to the case?
The witness-protection-program idea fell through, however, when neither state nor federal authorities offered it
Hm, why?
While Jackson has gone on to marry and become the stepfather of Elvis Presley's grandchildren, Jackson's close involvement with the boy ultimately ripped the boy's floundering family apart. After the settlement, the second marriages of both his parents ended in divorce. The boy no longer sees or speaks to his mother, whom he blames for allowing Jackson to become so intimate with him. He has not seen his eight-year-old sister in two years, or his stepfather, who essentially raised him. Now 15, the boy lives with his stepmother. He is not in therapy. He continues to have a relationship with his father, who was accused by Jackson's side of extortion but whom authorities declined to prosecute, saying there was not enough evidence—another fact not mentioned by Diane Sawyer. The boy's father and stepfather, once friends, are now suing each other.
Source???
Liz Smith has reported that Jackson wanted Princess Diana to be with him on the Sawyer interview, to commiserate about the sufferings imposed by tabloid coverage, and that he queried the British Embassy in Washington about being knighted by the Queen for "his work with little children." According to an observer, he actually was working behind the scenes to see if the Queen would knight him right there on PrimeTime Live.
Who is Liz Smith and where did she get her information from?
ABC News's credibility was seriously undermined when it was revealed that the network had electronically altered a pre-taped segment of Jackson because he didn't care for the way the lighting cast lines on his face.
What some lines on a face have to do with credibility?
Executives at CBS and NBC said that Jackson's handlers had clearly been looking for a "package." (In the interest of full disclosure, my husband, Tim Russert, is Washington-bureau chief of NBC News, with no responsibility for prime-time programming.) A producer from one network told me, "It's difficult to pretend there was no quid pro quo in the ABC deal. Jackson's people approached a bunch of us. Basically they said, 'Come back to us with a proposition, and not just what you can do with your news division—that is not enough.'"
I guess I understood! This article is an impact from Maureen Orth to ABC! (Or to Diane Sawyer personally. Or both.) Journalists' undercarpet fights? Boring, sorry.
In addition, Sawyer had "get-togethers" with Jackson and Presley before the expensively produced interview, which is not her usual practice.
Here Maureen Orth tries to emphasize that Sawyer was not unbiased towards MJ.
Oh yes, this interview was a deal - so what?.. Maureen Orth was not born yesterday (I suspect), some of her readers were not born yesterday as well.
And contrary to news-show procedures, the air-conditioning remained on loud while Sawyer interviewed Jackson, causing a strange background noise. The cool air was necessary, veteran soundmen say, because the lights on Jackson were so hot that his thick pancake makeup and lipstick would have melted otherwise, and his false eyelashes would have come off.
Looool, so normally people who are interviewed have to sweat like marathon runners under heating sun?.. Great practice!
"I have no idea what the purpose of her show is," District Attorney Sneddon wondered, somewhat taken aback after having spent three hours on a Saturday afternoon helping to prime one of Sawyer's producers. "Is it the Evening News or Hard Copy?" Good question. Whatever it was, 60 million Americans and untold millions around the world got something less than the truth.
What was the purpose of the article? To butt ABC and Diane Sawyer or to throw a stone at MJ? Or both? Well, I believe honorarium was a serious factor too!
5 May 2011
Jason Pfeiffer decided to blog
Jason Pfeiffer has a blog now - http://jasonpfeiffer.blogspot.com/
I'm preparing my popcorn (well, to tell you the truth I hate popcorn, but you know what I mean). Waiting for questionslike where, how many times, in what position and who was on top and comments like: "You're a liar because we want to think so".
Good luck, Jason! I hope you have strong sense of humour and wisdom.
I'm preparing my popcorn (well, to tell you the truth I hate popcorn, but you know what I mean). Waiting for questions
Good luck, Jason! I hope you have strong sense of humour and wisdom.
24 Apr 2011
Dear Arnie, you were too talkative...
Harvey Levin and TMZ are at their post: Jason Pfeiffer stands by his story, Arnie Klein is raving, because his back bottom side of the body feels uncomfortable. Looks like my fairy tale will have continuation.
P.S. The most hilarious part are comments - as always. I don't know why human beings are called homo sapiens - nothing sapiens about them.
P.S. The most hilarious part are comments - as always. I don't know why human beings are called homo sapiens - nothing sapiens about them.
2 Apr 2011
I want that weed too, it must be good...
I had no time to post it yet, I was busy during this week, but I'm really amazed by what is going on.
It seems that Dr. Klein has a tumultuous facebook life nowadays. (He even made a new profile, which is open to everyone or something like that. Hmm).
There are several attacks on Dr. Stephen Hoefflin in his fb (Dr. Hoefflin actually needs to have his hands pulled out for MJ's plastic surgery that was done after 1983). According to Klein Dr.Hoefflin himself made MJ propofol-addicted. (I don't know whether it is correct to say that MJ was addicted to propofol from a medical point of view. I don't know whether propofol can form addiction similar to alcohol addiction for example, but since MJ liked to sleep under anesthesia let it be addiction). I find those claims believable - MJ is known for his multiple plastic surgeries, where else he would learn about propofol other than his plastic surgeon office? Then there are attacks on Harvey Levin, TMZ founder. You may find them on Arnie Klein-Fine wall too.
But I'll quote what was written a couple of days ago...
Michael was not gay
by Arnold W. Klein on Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Michael Jackson's sexuality? I do not believe at this time there is any evidence to indicate that he was gay. Jason Pfeiffer an ex-emloyee of mine together with a lawyer,my ex-accountant and a shady busines man sold the story of Jason's so-called affair with Michael to the foreign press as well as the US media. I recently found out this story was fabricated my a ghost writer. I apologize to Michael's family for any damage this might have caused. Nevertheless, I feel the accusations of Michael's so called pedophilia forced him to live a tortured life with even his own sister accusing him of this behavior. (Later this post was deleted - makes you wonder why).
Well, it was enough to make me choke with a cookie I was eating.
OK, so our kind doctor doesn't think that MJ was gay, he has no evidence (despite the fact that Arnie himself said MJ was gay in a videotaped interview). He found out that this story was written by a ghost writer, bad boy Jason Pfeiffer was lying. Ugh, how disgusting! Well... Unfortunately (for Dr. Klein) there are some problems with his claims...
Here is a chronology of events as I witnessed them:
In the middle of August of 2009 this article appeared in an Australian magazine called Woman's Day. I have no idea whether it is a full article published in the magazine or not. Later it was quoted and reprinted by plenty of other media sources.
Later, in the beginning of October, Dr. Arnold Klein (together with his employee Jason Pfeiffer) went to Phoenix to give a lecture. Apparently during that visit to Phoenix an interview was given to a friend of Dr. Klein (he has a lot of friends), journalist Alicia Jacobs. It was a long videotaped interview by both Dr. Klein and Jason Pfeiffer.
On 29 of April 2010 (almost 7 months later) bits of these interviews were shown on Extra (it's a TV channel or a TV program - I don't know exactly, I'm very far from US, I can only search Internet). Jason Pfeiffer claimed that he was MJ's boyfriend, Dr. Klein claimed that he was aware of it, that MJ was gay and even that he (Dr. Klein) himself saw Jason and Michael together doing something (not very appropriate to do on your workplace perhaps...) These edited bits of the original interview caused hysteria among fans (not surprisingly at all). There had to be two parts of it, but part two was never shown for some (unknown) reasons. It was followed by media frenzy - as always. And even some public disputes on Twitter between Dr. Klein and late Elizabeth Taylor took place.
Later in May a man called Paul Camuso (he is a TV producer and a friend of both Jason Pfeiffer and Arnie Klein as far as I understood) decided to make an unedited interview with Jason Pfeiffer about his relationship with MJ (true story without media interference) and to put it on YouTube. For some reason this interview dissolved.
Several months later I found out this site - The Truth About Michael. (A bit weird site... I wonder who are people behind it and where do they take information). You may read a transcript of the interview with Jason Pfeiffer by Alicia Jacobs. Also you may find a letter from Jason Pfeiffer to someone with some explanations regarding the infamous interview to Alicia Jacobs.
When I found this interesting site there was, besides Jason Pfeiffer's interview, also a transcript of Dr. Klein's interview to Alicia Jacobs which was made at the same time as Jason's. Later it disappeared from the site (WHY?) The interview was really long, Arnie Klein was talking about MJ's drug usage, his doctors (including Dr. Hoefflin) and all other stuff, including Jason's relationship with MJ. (Fortunately I saved it). Dr. Klein was very - VERY - confident in JP/MJ relationship. He was telling Alicia that once he entered a room and stumbled upon Jason Pfeiffer and shirtless MJ, and this looked like they were doing something not very appropriate there. Later Jason confirmed Arnie's suspicions. Klein went on to say that Jason and MJ looked very happy together, spent a lot of time together in the office, they were talking for hours on the phone, MJ wanted Jason to come to all the concerts, etc.
So now the same Arnie Klein is telling the world (or at least a part of the world) that I do not believe at this time there is any evidence to indicate that he was gay. Um... Sure... So, Jason was lying, the story was written by a ghostwriter... But what about Arnie himself?.. Was his part written by a ghostwriter too? Did they star in this little play together? But why in hell? Did Klein want to protect his ass in the light of MJ's death investigation? (Some fans believe in this version, though I find it to be too weird and silly).
While I was trying to process all this information, next brilliant piece came out:
The publicity, the embezzlement, the defamation, the whole story
What is the point here ? The point is Harvey Levin is a totally dishonest human being who knew very well I had no part in the death of Michael Jackson. He knew very well Steven Hoefflin had been reported to be responsible for Michael's addiction. Furthermore, my lawyer, Howard Weitzman, Harvey Levin's closest friend, was fully aware of Hoefflin's behavior. When AEG hired Michael Jackson and Murray as his doctor they enabled an individual totally unfamiliar with the proper administration of this drug to give Mr Jackson Propofol every night. Frank DeLeo was present in Gothenburg Sweden where Hoefflin was giving Michael Propofol. Finally my lawyer Richard Charmley (together with Brad Boyer) illegally released Michael Jackson's medical records in court to get the $55,000 owed to me paid. This was done not to get me paid but to allow Murray to know what I did and keep news reporters at my office and homes.Additionally Charmley had told me that Mr Phillips of AEG wanted to work with me, Within a week I received a full copy of Michael's records sent to me mistakenly by Charmley. Richard Charmley also emailed a copy of these records to Randy Phillips according to individual's at AEG. Furthermore, Charmley was closely involved with Muhammed Khilji, Jason Pfeiffer, in embezzling over 10 million dollars from me. To continue the insane publicity enabled them to keep me away from my office and steal more and more money.Muhammed Khilji is a Pakistani Moslem. These people use a monetary transfer method called Hawala which was used to subsidize 9/11 and Mumbai. This is a terrorist act and the way Muhammed embezzled my funds and forced into bankruptcy. This bankruptcy will not prevent me from practicing but it is beyond my comprehension that both Andrew Whorton and Michael DeGeus of the homeland security division of the Secret Service have not been of any assistance to me in dealing with this situation.I had an overheating after that.
The insane publicity enabled them to keep me away from my office and steal more and more money... Wow!.. WOW!!!
What would be the next thing Dr. Klein is going to claim?.. That he is a biological father of MJ's children?..
13 Dec 2010
Tatiana Thumbtzen
I'm reading a book called "The Way He Made Me Feel" - something like memoirs of Tatiana Thumbtzen. (Thanx to a wonderful online source of books about MJ!) If this lady didn't exist she would be worth of invention!
Die-hard fans have to know her - she appeared in MJ's video "The Way You Make Me Feel" (end of 80-s, "Bad" album, MJ is still quite dark and obviously pretty as hell). Then she took part (for a couple of shows) in MJ's Bad tour.
A lot of people give interviews or write stories in their blogs about how they met MJ or how they worked with him, but this lady I believe is the first one to publish a full book on the subject!.. Actually it looks like an extensive interview.
I can't decide yet what prevails in her: a totally crazy fan or a shrewd girl who made a couple of bucks and 15 minutes of fame on MJ? Or is it actually a story for little stupid girls who have tendency to fall in love with wrong guys?.. The more I read, the more the last option seems to be the right one.
Tatiana isn't too good with dates and mathematics. She met MJ on the set of "The Way You Make Me Feel" on August 29, 1987 (according to Tatiana herself). She says that it was MJ's 31 birthday. Actually it was his 29 birthday. There were some other inaccuracies as well. Her meeting with MJ on set of "The Way You Make Me Feel" was not the first one. She saw him in New York in 1984 (it is described in one chapter of the book), according to another chapter it was during filming of "The Wiz". "The Wiz" was about 1979 actually though...
Tatiana describes an episode that took place during shooting of "The Way You Make Me Feel". There was a scene in the car, and she fell out of the car accidentally on her butt. MJ started to laugh (oh, not too polite, but I can understand him) and then started wiping her butt off. According to Tatiana it was a sign of MJ flirting with her. Yeah. Guys, never try to shake dust off someone's butt in case you have no desire to marry that dusty butt girl!
There are some pictures in the book and I wonder why MJ's face is covered on those pics?
Tatiana's history with Michael Jackson includes 4 days of filming "The Way You Make Me Feel" with a couple of little coversations, one day on set of another video, several photos and little conversation as well (including her ride home with MJ in his limo), several days on tour (rehearsals and their joint performance) without any conversations at all, talking on the phone one time during the tour before her last show when she kissed MJ at the end of their performance (she was fired after it), a couple of meetings with MJ's family (mother and father, MJ not included), after which Joe Jackson became her manager. He was Tatiana's manager for several months and didn't make anything positive for the starlet to become a star or at least to help her earn some money for bread and butter. And yes, neither Joe Jackson, nor Katherine Jackson (and people around them including) were helpful for Tatiana to get in touch with MJ (her idol, as she called him). The most funny thing is that some people actually believed, that she and MJ were a couple. (Well, all this according to Tatiana herself). Later though she met him one more time at a ceremony of some award. She was presenting this award to MJ. Of course she didn't have an opportunity to talk to him. Actually she admits that MJ did everything possible to stay away from her.
Tatiana mentions an interesting thing in her book: according to her Hugh Hefner was a good friend of MJ. (That's why Hefner didn't allow her to make a photoshoot for Playboy - because it could be "anti MJ"). I wonder why LaToya did a Playboy photoshoot? Her family was not pleased about it... Though perhaps MJ wasn't against it. Hm.
In 1993 Tatiana decided (herself) to give interviews to support MJ. And even said during one of those interviews that she and MJ were dating for a while - which was not true as she admitted in the book. She wanted MJ to be grateful for her support... Ah well.
Well, the end.
So... Yeah. It's a story for little stupid girls who have tendency to fall in love with wrong guys and to create idols. The problem is little stupid girls are just too stupid to comprehend it. I'm not even sure that Tatiana herself understood the moral of her own story. But I do understand why some fans like her. She is from the same brood. As far as I know there is a new book by T.Thumbtzen. About the same MJ.
Die-hard fans have to know her - she appeared in MJ's video "The Way You Make Me Feel" (end of 80-s, "Bad" album, MJ is still quite dark and obviously pretty as hell). Then she took part (for a couple of shows) in MJ's Bad tour.
A lot of people give interviews or write stories in their blogs about how they met MJ or how they worked with him, but this lady I believe is the first one to publish a full book on the subject!.. Actually it looks like an extensive interview.
I can't decide yet what prevails in her: a totally crazy fan or a shrewd girl who made a couple of bucks and 15 minutes of fame on MJ? Or is it actually a story for little stupid girls who have tendency to fall in love with wrong guys?.. The more I read, the more the last option seems to be the right one.
Tatiana isn't too good with dates and mathematics. She met MJ on the set of "The Way You Make Me Feel" on August 29, 1987 (according to Tatiana herself). She says that it was MJ's 31 birthday. Actually it was his 29 birthday. There were some other inaccuracies as well. Her meeting with MJ on set of "The Way You Make Me Feel" was not the first one. She saw him in New York in 1984 (it is described in one chapter of the book), according to another chapter it was during filming of "The Wiz". "The Wiz" was about 1979 actually though...
Tatiana describes an episode that took place during shooting of "The Way You Make Me Feel". There was a scene in the car, and she fell out of the car accidentally on her butt. MJ started to laugh (oh, not too polite, but I can understand him) and then started wiping her butt off. According to Tatiana it was a sign of MJ flirting with her. Yeah. Guys, never try to shake dust off someone's butt in case you have no desire to marry that dusty butt girl!
There are some pictures in the book and I wonder why MJ's face is covered on those pics?
Tatiana's history with Michael Jackson includes 4 days of filming "The Way You Make Me Feel" with a couple of little coversations, one day on set of another video, several photos and little conversation as well (including her ride home with MJ in his limo), several days on tour (rehearsals and their joint performance) without any conversations at all, talking on the phone one time during the tour before her last show when she kissed MJ at the end of their performance (she was fired after it), a couple of meetings with MJ's family (mother and father, MJ not included), after which Joe Jackson became her manager. He was Tatiana's manager for several months and didn't make anything positive for the starlet to become a star or at least to help her earn some money for bread and butter. And yes, neither Joe Jackson, nor Katherine Jackson (and people around them including) were helpful for Tatiana to get in touch with MJ (her idol, as she called him). The most funny thing is that some people actually believed, that she and MJ were a couple. (Well, all this according to Tatiana herself). Later though she met him one more time at a ceremony of some award. She was presenting this award to MJ. Of course she didn't have an opportunity to talk to him. Actually she admits that MJ did everything possible to stay away from her.
Tatiana mentions an interesting thing in her book: according to her Hugh Hefner was a good friend of MJ. (That's why Hefner didn't allow her to make a photoshoot for Playboy - because it could be "anti MJ"). I wonder why LaToya did a Playboy photoshoot? Her family was not pleased about it... Though perhaps MJ wasn't against it. Hm.
In 1993 Tatiana decided (herself) to give interviews to support MJ. And even said during one of those interviews that she and MJ were dating for a while - which was not true as she admitted in the book. She wanted MJ to be grateful for her support... Ah well.
Well, the end.
So... Yeah. It's a story for little stupid girls who have tendency to fall in love with wrong guys and to create idols. The problem is little stupid girls are just too stupid to comprehend it. I'm not even sure that Tatiana herself understood the moral of her own story. But I do understand why some fans like her. She is from the same brood. As far as I know there is a new book by T.Thumbtzen. About the same MJ.
27 Nov 2010
A little bit of irony
There is an amusing board called Lipstick Alley, part of it is devoted to MJ and overpopulated by his crazy fans. (I have no idea whether there are fans who are not crazy... Well, fan is short for fanatic, fanatics are not normal by definition...) I read it because it is easy to find new information there - fans post it there regularly. But besides info there are DISCUSSIONS - which spread like forest fires very often. In a lot of cases the leading idea of these so called discussions is "We hate - put a name here". They are always ready to hate somebody - in most cases those objects of their hate are people who were close to MJ. His wives, his make-up artist, his producer, his managers, his family members... Etc. Of course everyone was mean towards MJ, he was surrounded by bad people (why such a good person would be surrounded only by so bad people I wonder?..), etc. Perhaps I'll post something about that overwhelming fans' hate later.
Actually I wanted to say a different thing. Recently someone started a thread called "Why Do People Think Michael Was Gay?" It means that there are fans who REALLY don't understand WHY someone would think looking at such a guy that the guy is a little bit gay...
Cultural differences?..
I wonder why would someone do almost anything to conceal their heterosexuality?..
(Here I need that awesome laughter from the final of "Thriller")
P.S. By the way, I wouldn't argue with a gay guy like all this girls do.
Actually I wanted to say a different thing. Recently someone started a thread called "Why Do People Think Michael Was Gay?" It means that there are fans who REALLY don't understand WHY someone would think looking at such a guy that the guy is a little bit gay...
Cultural differences?..
I wonder why would someone do almost anything to conceal their heterosexuality?..
(Here I need that awesome laughter from the final of "Thriller")
P.S. By the way, I wouldn't argue with a gay guy like all this girls do.
19 Nov 2010
It's a real war on a global scale...
It's so hard to meet someone who is interested in MJ and who has common sense at the same time... Almost impossible. (Well, intelligent people with common sense are really very rare nowadays... (Smileys!!! I want smileys!!!))
There is a blog (that partially inspired me to start my own blog actually) by a young lady named Desiree. I read it because she posts interesting information there (at least sometimes). At first she gave me impression of an intelligent person who possesses logic and good writing skills. But later I found out that the lady is gullible... She simply made up her mind. Now she is sure that MJ was a paedophile. Ok, perhaps she knows something that I have no idea about (she wrote that she talked to someone who told her that MJ had sex with underaged boys, etc. ... Ok...)
The last post that she made had interesting information - http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/explosive-proof-michael-jackson-was-gay.html#comments - she managed to pluck it out of the Trial (I'll put it from a capital letter - that Trial!) documents. But my post is not about the documents and information that they contain (though it confirmed once more time something I already knew). It is more about the comments. There is a lady named Alison who put her comments there - she is on the same page with me (almost, because I'm still very curious about everything/almost everything MJ)! I even wanted to make a comment myself, but then decided not to do it. Sometimes it's better to abstain from discussions...
P.S. Desiree wants "proofs" from those, who say something contradictory to her beliefs in comments to her blog. Where are her proofs of "MJ was a paedophile" besides her theories based (sometimes) on rumors?..
P.P.S. An insider from the music industry told Desiree that MJ was a child molestor (according to her own words). I wonder why does she chose to believe him (her).
There is a blog (that partially inspired me to start my own blog actually) by a young lady named Desiree. I read it because she posts interesting information there (at least sometimes). At first she gave me impression of an intelligent person who possesses logic and good writing skills. But later I found out that the lady is gullible... She simply made up her mind. Now she is sure that MJ was a paedophile. Ok, perhaps she knows something that I have no idea about (she wrote that she talked to someone who told her that MJ had sex with underaged boys, etc. ... Ok...)
The last post that she made had interesting information - http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2010/11/explosive-proof-michael-jackson-was-gay.html#comments - she managed to pluck it out of the Trial (I'll put it from a capital letter - that Trial!) documents. But my post is not about the documents and information that they contain (though it confirmed once more time something I already knew). It is more about the comments. There is a lady named Alison who put her comments there - she is on the same page with me (almost, because I'm still very curious about everything/almost everything MJ)! I even wanted to make a comment myself, but then decided not to do it. Sometimes it's better to abstain from discussions...
P.S. Desiree wants "proofs" from those, who say something contradictory to her beliefs in comments to her blog. Where are her proofs of "MJ was a paedophile" besides her theories based (sometimes) on rumors?..
P.P.S. An insider from the music industry told Desiree that MJ was a child molestor (according to her own words). I wonder why does she chose to believe him (her).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)